Why do people discount peoples records once they’re past a certain point

I just can't hold certain losses against them if they had already established their achievements as one of the best. It's like you have to erase some of the great wins and accomplishments just because they picked up losses. Kid Gavilan is considered one of the best WW fighters of all time but has 30 Losses.

 

Ezzard Charles never even fought into his 40s. He was losing to guys like "Young" Jack Johnson when he was 34. Did you see that fight? How many of Ezzard's losses in his mid 30s have you seen? Not the title fights to Marciano and Walcott. The shitshows to losers like Toxie Hall and Donnie Fleeman?

Because it's a LOT easier to ignore the losses when you never saw them. That's why a lot of those older fighters get a pass. Most now never saw the garbage losses.

And what was the "tail" end of Duran's career? The last TWO DECADES? He fought for 30 years. He was only great for the first 10 or 12 years. When you look at his career in its entirety, for the majority of the 30 years, he was not very good at all.

Losing a 12-round decision in a welterweight title fight when you are in your 40s is one thing.

Losing to no-name journeymen when you are 34 on club cards is another. Losing for TWO DECADES on crappy shows is another thing altogether.

Every career of every great fighter doesn't end the same. Losses do impact a career. Especially YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS leading to DECADES AND DECADES of bad losses.

Pacquiao was on top for so long, he can't fight for another 20 or 30 years and screw it up, like guys like Duran and Jones did. But bad losses always hurt a career. ALWAYS. You're never seen in the same light, especially when they begin to stack up.

 

The fighters worth scrutinising now, get paid much more money than they greats ever did.

I wouldn't worry about them.

 

You believe that when a fighter sticks around too long, loses to fighters who they would very likely beat in their prime, should be held against their greatness, because they continued to fight when old?

 

But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Does anyone really care about what Duran did during the last 2 decades when he still fought on after his win against Barkley? Do people really hold his losses to Camacho and Pazienza against him? And yet people still rate Duran highly and is arguably a Top 5 best fighter of all time. And yes I'm also aware that Charles had his strings of losses in his 30s, but again Charles still has the reputation as being one of the greatest fighters over. They may not be seen in the same light INITIALLY but people will have appreciation and respect for them over time when the dust settles. I agree that every career of every great fighters don't end the same, but when all is said and done people will rate them highly based on what they accomplished in the past and not for having stuck around too long and taking losses.

As for Pac, he knows that his time is up and I'm sure he'll call it quits soon.

 

They are taken as a whole. Most of us know that losses that occur when one sticks around too long, don't take away from what the fighter accomplished. Accomplishments are the make criteria when defining greatness.

 

One could argue 1960s Ali never would've lost to Ken Norton. People in the 70s when Ali lost to Norton certainly didn't think so. So should we ignore ALL of Ali's losses in the decade of the 70s after he turned 28 and not give credit to the people who beat him?

If you fight for 20 years, and you were considered a top fighter nearly the whole time and you retire with a couple losses ... that is your career.

If you fight for 30 years, and you were only great for 10 or 12 years, and you fought too long, and you lost to a bunch of awful opponents because you showed up in terrible shape or just didn't try ... and you spend decades crapping all over the accomplishments you had early in your career ... THAT is your career.

I see no reason why the person who fought way too long and racked up a bunch of bad losses should ask us all to collectively ignore the years in his career when he didn't train or give a damn.

That was your career. All of it. Own it.

 

When it's all said and done, who really cares? I think the fans make a bigger deal about it than the fighters. It's about money. Sure, a lot of it is ego, but these guys want to be able to get big fights for as long as possible... win, lose, or draw. Pacquiao is one of the best WWs right now... he is also 42. There was a time when Pacquiao was better than he is right now... he is still very good though. All things should be considered when reviewing a fighter's resume. All wins and losses don't carry the same weight.

Horn got a gift... against a past-prime Pacquiao. He deserves credit for given Pac a tough fight, but it needs to be looked at in the proper perspective.

True. I have brought this exact topic up a few times. Here is my take on Mayweather. Even if he was 49-1 or 45-5, it really shouldn't matter. I don't think it would matter to people who really understand the sport. It may matter to some people, those people probably don't matter to me. There were fights he avoided. There were fighters who were past-prime, injured, or made to lose extra weight. He had the best managed boxing career of all-time. The doesn't mean he was the best, he was an all-time great though. Had he won those fights like you suggested... fighting those guys in their prime, fighting some guys he either avoided or for whatever reason misses out on... you better believe it would have elevated his status. In short, his resume left room for a lot of criticism. Pacquiao is an all-time great as well and whatever happens in the future will not change that. Any resumes can be picked apart. Ali, Robinson, Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep, Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones Jr., etc.

 

Clearly, you do, because the last two decades he fought were 1981 to 2001. When he fought Barkley in 1989 was included in that period. (LOL)

You pick one big win here or there and ignore just about all of the other 19 years. (LOL) I think that's bull****. Duran from the start of his career to 1980 when he fought and beat Leonard were the "great" years.

That fighter is the one people want to remember. And that's fine. But his career continued for two more decades.

He went 31-14, I believe, from 1981 to 2001. 45 pro fights. Lots of horrible, sloppy decisions. Lots of embarrassing opponents and fights. If you have to ignore TWO-THIRDS of someone's career that were filled with bad performances and losses, then you aren't really rating a fighter's career. You are ignoring the MAJORITY of it.

And in my mind, the bad losses are just as clear as the big wins. I saw them. He looked like garbage THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME those last two decades , even when he'd show up fat and huff and puff his way to a points win over some no-name scrub. He'd look like garbage. It's not like he was "brilliant" in all those 31 wins. Far from it.

 

P4P isn't ATG. P4P is meaning fan garbage.

 

You just don't get it. You are getting a lot of good input as to why you are mistaken, but you don't seem to understand it.

 

I believe looking at a fighter's entire career is the proper perspective.

If he retired after beating Oscar De La Hoya, Manny would be viewed one way. If he retired after losing back to back fights to Tim Bradley and Marquez, he'd be viewed yet another way. If he retired after beating Keith Thurman, he'd be viewed yet another way.

Wins and losses matter. You can say "they don't" but they do. You can rationalize it by saying, well, he was old here or he was hurt there.

Years ago, old fighters could got out horribly and most people who didn't buy a ticket never saw them lose.

Manny doesn't have that option. We can click a button and watch practically all his wins and all his losses. So, if he continues on, and he loses, I'm just saying it's going to impact how he's remembered.

If he goes out with 5 KO losses in his next five, as one guy said, he will certainly be viewed another way.

How they go out impacts how all fighters are remembered.

It's a part of his career. It's all a part of his career.

 

This is a large part of it. Fans have to be honest with themselves in regards to their level of knowledge. They (we) need to accept our limitations and understandings of this sport. The sport has changes so much over the last 4 decades, and even the last 10-15 years.

It's weird that some fans seem to take offense to an older generation bagging on the current, as if it's bagging on them.