Which boxer tarnished their legacy most by fighting on?

Easily Roy Jones Jr.

 

Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows all good things must come to an end, least we forget that these warriors are prize fighters & they fight for pay. I myself never dwell on the negatives & neither should anyone else who has any respect for our beloved sport by way of natural decline of our once said hero's of the ring. It's always a rise & fall, but as we know some fall futher than others but that dos'nt or should'nt take away the marvelous acheivents & happiness they've brought to there legions of fans when they stood atop boxings Mt Olympus.

Yer can't take away their achievments no matter how hard some sad neg heads tryD

 

Anybody who counts Roys losses past Calzaghe as damaging are being ridiculous. He's gone after that.

He had something left for Tarver and Johnson. Those count. But the rest, he clearly fades a second step, and is no longer a force.

 

But how often was RJJ hit by a puncher in his hey day? I think the ko losses shows Jones didnt have a chin of steel so to speak. Now I ant saying he had a glass jaw, but with his speed gone, we can at last rank that chin.

Ali prove he had a iron chin when his speed faded.

 

Roy jones because it brought question marks about his chin that could never be answered prior to tarver. Now people wonder whether or not he ever had a chin and some whether or not he ever had technical skill.

 

It's complete bull ****. Is it a good idea for boxers to fight longer than they should? No it is not. However this dose not mean they did not acomplish what they did in their better days. It dose not mean that at their peak they were outstanding in the ring.

 

Tyson. Going from indestructible teenage prodigy to pathetic, washed-up looney in the span of 19 long years.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

:thumbsup

 

i don't think it's so much that they damage their legacies by continuing, but more so that if fighters retire at the 'right time' they end up with neater records, and actually enhance their legacies, perhaps unfairly.

imagine lewis had continued and lost a few fights past prime. no one would be able to say 'he beat every man he ever got in the ring with', but his achievements up until these 'additional losses' would be the same. could his resume have taken the hit of a holmes/berbick-like fiasco? it should be able to, but would it? it's surprisingly hard to be objective about these kinds of things. just something to think about...

(lewis is just an example)

 

Nice avatar PrinceVega. I won $5 on that fight. Hey, that's a lot in high school! Roy Jones should have never lost the weight to fight Tarver. He always did things his way, and the one time he listened to his critics it became disastrous.

 

the tarver loss is legitimate.

 

Audley Harrison, post-Olympics.

 

I wasn't saying Roy's chin was anything, i was stating that a lot of people think he was always this fragile fighter, and how going on too long has damaged his reputation more than anyone else. The question which the ts was asking.
Saying we can now rank his chin is not really on the money, because most fighters punch resistance deteriorates with age anyway.
Chins aside, like i said Roy is hurting his reputation with every alarming KO loss.

 

ezzard charles. 25 losses in all, 7 by stoppage. ali was sad as well because he was getting some gift decisions post-manila.