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

It seems like there are two types of fans, one who wants to see perfection and the other who wants to see greatness. Nothing wrong with either but I'm squarely in the latter camp.

Pac in the ring at 42 as the challenger taking a bad beating in a fight that looked like David vs Goliath and not just going the distance but almost nicking it takes away from his perfection (if he had any left) but adds to his greatness.

Like killing yourself when you see the first grey hair, the first wrinkle, the first lower back ache, those who quit fighting before they decline are leaving part of the story untold.

Now for his health I hope he stops here or at most takes a couple soft touches, but I'm glad he didn't just walk off before the Mayweather fight when the decline was pretty evidently starting. There was still a lot of good left.

 

You have to look at it case by case.

Roy Jones retired too late. It hurts his standing for sure though I still think he was the greatest fighter of his generation.

However Hopkins got knocked out by Joe Smith Jr and I don't think anyone cares.

Pacquiao is still impressive despite being ancient. Even his loss to Ugas was pretty close and Ugas gave Sean Porter hell who gave Errol Spence hell so Ugas is not a pushover. Not to mention that Pac has no business at WW to begin with.

 

Right.

That’s fine.

But can you also not see where the fighter is in his career at the time?

Can you not see the level of opponent he’s facing?

Can you not see the level they’re fighting at?

Can your brain not decipher whether it’s:


A: A past his best fighter fighting at the highest level

B: A completely washed up former great fighting a low level fighter at a low level

?

Can you not distinguish between the two things?

Can you not apply the relevant context required?


Manny Pacquiao fighting Ugas, was completely different to Mike Tyson fighting Kevin McBride, AFTER he’d already been knocked out by a European level fighter in Danny Williams.


Yes, we can see things from your perspective.

Now try and see things from ours.


Roberto Duran losing to someone called Omar Gonzalez when he was nearly 50 years old, after having had almost 120 fights, doesn’t mean a damn thing.

If you can’t see that, then I’m at a complete and utter loss.

 

Right.

You’ve just agreed that if Floyd came back and got schooled and brutally knocked out twice, that you wouldn’t change your current ranking of him.

So then why the hell are you arguing with everyone?

You’ve just admitted that those 2 hypothetical losses wouldn’t mean anything.


That’s what we’ve been saying to you for the last 7 pages.

That is the kind of example that we’ve been giving you.

You simply apply the relevant context.

Any knowledgeable fight fan should be able to do that.

They don’t pretend that they didn’t happen, but they simply see them for what they were.


Regarding Roy, I’ve already agreed with you. The losses hurt him and affect his standing. But only the ones at world level.

Only the ones when he was still classed as a top level fighter.

The Tarver and Johnson losses hurt him.

The loss to Calzaghe shouldn’t hurt him.

The losses to Green and Enzo Mac have no relevance whatsoever.


There’s no need to fight us on this.

Some losses are relevant, and some aren’t. And it’s not about being biased and choosing the ones that you want. It’s simply about being sensible.


Tyson’s losses to Evander are extremely relevant.

Tyson’s loss to McBride isn’t even worth thinking about.

 

Regarding Floyd potentially losing to Youtubers, these clowns that you’re referring to, would simply be no nothing social media casual fans.

Yeah, they would be questioning his greatness. But to us and everybody else on here, their opinions would be absolutely worthless. We’d just cringe at their lack of knowledge. But no knowledgable fan would ever question Floyd’s greatness because of them.

You just have to move in the right circles.

Debate with knowledgeable people and remove yourself from the fools.

 

Look, if you want to rate Duran among the greatest lightweights ever, I'm right there with you. He won like 60 to 70 fights and only lost 1 at the weight, was a long-time, dominant champ, unified, never lost a lightweight title fight. Left the division as unified champ.

I'm on board. None of those later losses in higher weights matter to how he's rated at lightweight. At lightweight, he dominated.

If we're talking, WHICH WE ARE, about where he would be rated on some list of all-time greats, Duran should NOT be anywhere near the top. Not by a longshot.

He was a pro for 30 years, and he was only great for 10 out of the 30. The rest of the time, two decades, longer than most peoples' careers, he was barely mediocre, at best. And sometimes worse than mediocre.

And, when rating all time greats, there were more than a few who, in their late 40s, were still winning world titles and knocking off much younger champs. So, in that context, who Duran lost to in his later career most definitely counts against him.

We judge practically every fighter based on their entire careers.

Some of you like to play favorites with guys like Duran, and I have ZERO idea why.

When I began following boxing, Duran was in his 20s and a star. But from the time I was 16 until I was 36 (and closing in on 40), Duran fought and was either embarrassing or downright sucked the vast majority of the time, even when he won. With one or two notable exceptions.

So, having lived thru it, I just cannot ignore that. Just can't. That's a lot of years.

People who picked up the sport later on and didn't watch it while it was going on can pick and choose. Once you live through it, though, and the bad fights go on FOREVER, there's no room to forget.

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't think Manny is in danger of that, because he's still near the top at 42. There aren't that many years left for him to screw up what came before, like Duran did.

Losing a close decision in a title fight at 42 is in no way the same as Duran, at 40, coming in fat with boobs and quitting after being punched in the armpit by a journeyman.

There are too many guys who had long careers and were still great in their 40s to just dismiss the losses of other 40 year olds as them being "too old."

Every boxer chooses how long his career is.

Some pack in Hall of Fame careers and don't fight 10 years. Some fight 20 years and start fast, win belts climb the weight classes, keep winning belts, really never fall out of contention. Always near or at the top.

Others start out strong and spend the majority of their career just living off the past. Or they have what should be a full career at the top, should retire, don't, and then spend an equal length of time that they were on top just being ordinary to bad.

I'm not cutting the last group any slack for that.

I judge everyone equally based on their entirety of their careers. You can go out on top if you want. You can go out looking like garbage for the last 10 years. It's up to you.

But, when it comes to all-time great lists, you're getting judged on the WHOLE career, not just parts.

 

When boxers reach that point of immortality (not all of them can reach it---most of them may never reach it) then the fans no longer count their losses, as it is understood that the fighter is just fighting past his expiration date.

Fighters like Robinson, Ali, Pacquiao, Duran, Leonard to name a few has achieved this. They have their worst losses but somehow it doesn't count.

When losses still counts on you like Roy Jones did later in his career, that means Roy despite his superior talent has never reached that point of immortality even after he beat Ruiz for the Heavyweight title.

 

I understand where you’re coming from. But you’ve still got to objectively evaluate what he did in those 10 years.

He was a small LW with a small reach, who fought prime versions of SRL, Benitez, Hearns and Duran.

He was a small fighter who beat a monster in Barkley up at MW at 36.

He had no business being in the ring with a guy like that.

You also have to note how many fights he’d had, not just his age.

Everything is relevant.

He’s rated very highly by the majority of fans, based upon his skills, his achievements, and the fact that he laid it all on the line by fighting true ATG’s whilst they were prime.

Personally, I wouldn’t have an issue with you marking him down for his lack of discipline etc, and his losses when he was still a world level fighter and capable of winning at the highest level.

I just don’t think that his end of career losses are relevant though, when he was no longer a top level fighter when he was in his late 40’s and 50’s. They’re just completely irrelevant to me.

Yes, you can say most of his career was bad. But that’s because he fought nearly 120 fights until he was 50. If you fight that many fights until your 50, then the likelihood is that you’re going to have more bad years than good. But that’s where you apply the relevant context.

I’m now interested on your opinion of James Toney.

 

Surely there must be a cut off point for you?

You’ve already agreed that your ranking of Floyd wouldn’t change if my scenario was to play out.

I know that you evaluate a fighter’s entire career. And I understand that. But there has to be a point where certain performances aren’t relevant.

 

I stated the cut-off point. If we're rating someone at a particular weight, like Duran at lightweight, then the cut-off point is when he is no longer a lightweight. I'm not going to judge his lightweight ratings based on losses he had decades later at super middleweight.

If you're rating people all-time, the whole career matters.

It simply isn't fair to fighters who put together a great career and retire on top ... to simply ignore the losses and bad showings of fighters who refuse to retire and just keep going and going and going.

It's their career. They own it. Each fight is a piece of their legacy.

Fighters know that.

It's why some guys quit when they no longer think they are capable of being as good as they once were.

And it's why some guys just keep care less and keep trudging along, winning and losing.

The other careers are GREATER. Going out on top before you become a joke is IMPORTANT. Showing up in shape and CARING whether you win or lose IS IMPORTANT.

If they don't care about their legacy, why should I?

 

I did no such thing. You asked if I'd still rate him. I said I WOULD NOT.

 

No, that's where you say ... if you want to be held in a higher standing don't spend two decades looking mostly like garbage.

The context is the WHOLE picture.

If you fight until you are 50 and you don't care about training and care less about how you look and you're just looking to make a few bucks based on a reputation you earned as a young man, you're invariably going to damage your reputation.

That's what Duran did. It was his choice. That's what Jones did. That was his choice.

* Some fighters chose NOT to fight to 50 and stop when they were near or at their best. Duran didn't.

* Some fighters are still great in their late 40s, Duran was not.

Those guys I rate higher than Duran because they had FAR better overall careers.

 

I agree. Pacquiao has never embarrassed himself in the ring. He always takes everything seriously. He's always fit. He doesn't quit. He doesn't phone it in.

 

No.

There has to be a cut off point where you think that a certain loss is irrelevant.

There has to be.

If Manny fought at 50 and got beaten by a low level guy, then surely you would see that for what it was.

Surely you can’t think that Tyson’s loss to McBride has any relevance.

I’m not saying that it doesn’t count.

I’m not asking you to ignore it. But surely the circumstances have to matter.

Surely when you think of that fight you just think what a sad spectacle that it was.

It surely can’t count towards your ranking of him, like where you’d rank him higher if it hadn’t have happened.

 

Okay. I’ve obviously misinterpreted what you’d said.

So please clarify if I’ve got this right:

(just humour me and my scenario for the sake of the debate)

Me and you go to a bar this coming weekend and we both have a beer and agree that Floyd is a top 20 ATG.

He then comes out of retirement next year and loses badly to 2 non great fighters, suffering 2 embarrassing losses.

Then this time next year, me and you then meet up in a bar again for a beer.

Are you seriously telling me that if that happened, that you would no longer rate Floyd as a top 20 ATG?

Even though he wouldn’t have fought for almost 5 years, and he’d be 45 years of age?

Are you serious??