I would laugh at that .... but then I remember Donald Trump is President of United States, so in this world in 2017 anything's possible.
Ya I'm not putting Floyd in here.. Money wise, there is no question about it. But that aside and from a pure boxing standpoint, I would go as far to say a mismanaged career. Took him 18 years to have 45 fights, not taking on a lot of risk. Salvador Sanchez had 45 fights in 7 years, a current fighter Canelo 45 fights in 9 years, Chavez well over a 100... For me, Floyd gets way more respect retiring at 64-2, then 49-0
Yeah, hopefully that's the case. Maybe they can just have a little unofficial street brawl like Rocky Balboa and Tommy Gunn did at the end of Rocky V?
Ok. Well in my own eyes Holmes did nothing to diminish his previous standing. Never did i expect him to beat Tyson or Holyfield. Nor did i think he'd beat Mercer! In his comeback (at a massively advanced age) he went 21-4. In ancient age and millllles past prime he lost to Tyson, Holyfield, McCall and 31-0 Nielson. EVERY loss was for a strap! We will agree to disagree. I think many modernists rate Mecer pretty high. Holmes beat him convincingly when way over the hill. I personally believe many modernists see this win as confirmation Holmes would have competedin their era comfortably. His narrow loss to a McCall coming off a ko of Lewis would have confirmed this. We will agree to disagree.
Joe Louis had his perfect retirement, when he handed in his card after the Walcott fight. Just a shame that circumstances did not permit him to maintain it.
Floyd could have done more legacy wise, yes. But he still has arguably the best resume of the last 20 years (it's between him and Pac) and retired with more money in the bank and with received punishment than any fighter ever. I'd take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday's. And I can't really see a better time for him to retire. Anytime before Pac and he loses from a legacy standpoint as well as a shitload of money, and had he gone on after McGregor he'd probably been in for a loss as soon as he stepped in the ring with a top opponent. Coming back for the Conor fight of course did nothing for his legacy, but quite a bit for his bank account. What time would be better for him to retire?
I thought Lewis was a good retirement.. Perfect. Sprinks? Too soon, but where could he go? He lost in one round to Tyson. It isn't like he could fight someone else and be thought of as champ. Marciano was early.. Had fights with Patterson..
I think Floyd lacks in the fighting guys when they were great category. He handpicked and set up the fights too much. I give Pac. the edge. If they had not fought, I would think Pac is much greater.
Spinks was somewhat boxed in for sure. I think he would have been vulnerable against the top contenders and his knee was on the blink. He couldn't go back to 175 either. Cruiser would have been a big step down in importance. A rematch with Tyson certainly wasn't viable. I just don't think he could have enhanced his legacy. He had to roll the dice and fight Tyson, it was huge money and some thought he had a reasonable chance. For me the crushing loss against Tyson doesn't overly affect him. He was a top 4-10 Light Heavyweight who took a chance and won the heavyweight title over an aging Holmes. No 175 in history could be expected to worry Tyson much.
Bob Foster also retired with his crown in the 70's...right after that """draw""" with Ahumada,...but he ruined it all by not having the sense to stay retired and came back...and suffered a couple of stoppage defeats...one to the great Bob Hazleton.
Micheal Carbajal retiring following a stirring, come from behind victory over a young Jorge Arce qualifies.