I think the word Legend is starting to take on some different meaning these days!!!

His resume is great, its not legendary status. Elvis is a legend, sinatra is a legend, Michael Jackson is a legend, legends are few in between.

Obviously ODLH will be known worldwide by boxing fans, heck Ivan calderon is known worldwide by boxing fans. This isnt fame amongst boxing fans cos if someone is a boxing fan, they should know any major fighter. This is about fame worldwide by none boxing fans, I dont watch golf but I bloody well know who is Tiger woods. People in UK simply did not know who DLH was and that may come as shocking to alot of americans.

Those wins you listed, 2 fighters were great but was past their best, the rest arent "great" fighter. You are simply confusing the words great and legendary.

 

You're right, but like I said before, apart from Ali and Tyson, there are absolutely NO boxers who are famous in non-boxing circles. None whatsoever.

I guess the discussion comes down to what we see as a legend. I agree with the point of the thread, that it is used loosely.

For me, in every era there are some boxers whose names are attached to that era. Most of the names on the legend list are the ones we remember straight away when somebody speaks of their contemporaries.

When I say Hearnes, you say Hagler. When I say SRL you say Roberto Duran.

Similarly, in 20 years when someone says Mayweather, the replies going to be Oscar De La Hoya.

From the current crop of fighters, which ones do you think will go down as legends?

 

By your rationale, Arturo Gatti is a legend, by him filling up Atlantic Cityatsch atsch

 

I don't know exactly what a legend is but Hopkins did say he was a legend and that Calzaghe was just a champion. Samuel L Jackson said he was Bob Satterfield when he was just Tommy Kinkaid in "Ressurecting the Champion"... Maybe fighters need to think more of themselves in order to overcome that obstacle put in front of them. B'sides, who's the real legend, who's the real Bob Satterfield? Bernard can't be J J Walcott or Archie Moore but he can be just Bernard and that probably would be enough.

 

Exactly my point. In the space of 100 years 2 fighters have been well known enough to gain legendary fame, perhaps in 20 more years time another fighter will surface that will have legendary fame. Legends are IMO suppose to be far few and between.

I dont rate Hagler or Hearns legends. Definetely ATG's but not legends. I rate SRL simply because his resume is just simple amazing, benitez, hearns, duran, hagler...on top of that IMO the guy would have beaten SRR. Duran has his own legend, this guy at the peak of his prime at LW was considered pretty much unstoppable and his resume from there is also amazing.

On this era I think Floyd will go down as a legend. I think he will beat 1 more great fighter and retire undefeated. The undefeated record will give him that aura of invincibility thus many years from now, his legend will grow and people will simply keep exagerrating just how unbeatable this guy was. When infact I think hes very beatable, just not the right fighters around at the moment. Hearns, SRL, Duran, even ODLH prime, SSM prime, Tito prime etc.

If I said Dempsey, Tyson, Ali, Louis all had legendary fame. Ali, SRR, SRL, Armstrong, Duran have legendary resume. Tyson, RJJ has legendary physical prowess.

Perhaps your right though. Many years from now ODLH maybe considered to be a legend, but I dont think its through legendary fame, but through legendary drawing power. He has set records, its hard to forget him.

 

Its all a matter of perception then.

Obviously by that criteria, its near impossible to be legendary. But to me, to be considered an ATG, I think one most also be considered a legend.

Again, perception.

 

Sure its perception, always been perception. But what the OP is saying is, has the general perception of what "legend" means been distorted? The question cant possibly be answered without someones perception being considered "wrong"

ATG to me is someone who was great for their era, but at the same time put in any era, a much tougher era for example, he would still be considered great. For example, Floyd is considered great for our era, but had he been around to face Benitez, Duran, hearns, SRL, would he still be great? It could be he would have lost 0-4 to all of them, then he wouldnt be considered great. Personally I think he could have still been great, however he wouldnt have anywhere near the same unbeatable aura about him.

A legend to me quite simply, is someone considered to be just damm amazing, gods gift without a shadow of a doubt regardless of any era he was in. So legends perhaps are the greatest of all time (or near there) whereas ATG's are greats that could compete with other greats in other era's. Floyd could compete in any era, RJJ, SRR, SRL imo would be the best of any era.

 

By your criteria then...Bernard at the very least (leave Oscar out of the convo for second) would be a legend.

Many people (myself included) have Hopkins #1 H2H among MWs. On top of that, it is constantly said that he is a 15 round fighter, caught in the era of 12 round fights. Add to that that he is among the best ever in terms of defense, timing, accuracy, ring intelligence, LONGEVITY (when assessing a legend, this is a BIG thing), chin, etc.

He, more than almost anyone else of this past era (save for maybe Jones and Whitaker) is a fighter who would have excelled in any time...any era. Which is why I feel its tough to ever say he shouldnt be considered a legend.

Just out of curiosity, which fighters of the past 30 or so years (if any) do you consider to be legends?

 

Yep, but Bernard although one of the best ever at MW, always looked very beatable. Jones already humiliated him. Its dificult to have legendary aura when you been clearly outclassed by someone else. On top of that in terms of resume, hes really beaten nobody that would elevate him to legendary status. Some would say he lost to the first great MW fighter he fought in Jones, then he lost again to a true good MW in Taylor and further down the line lost again to Calzaghe.

Jones at his prime seemed unbeatable, so did SRL (at his best) and so did Duran. Tyson IMO is a legend based on the fact that he is probably the biggest face of boxing worldwide, even now. Bernard on the other hand, if he is a legend, what does that make Jones, Taylor & calzaghe, superlegends? Fair enough if he overcame them on rematch, or it seemed like an offnight.

 

Jones humiliated him? By winning a ho-hum fight 8-4 before either of them were even in their primes...and neither of them really even landed anything worthwhile over 12?

atsch

Have you ever even seen the fight??? You cant be serious with that statement??? And I wont even get into the thing about Taylor...not worth the time.

And Tyson? His resume is hardly even considered good (look at WHO he beat...not how he beat them). His reign was the most dominant, but was also very, VERY shortlived.

Tyson could be considered imfamous...not legendary if we are going by your criteria (I do consider him a legend...but by your criteria he is anything but). He looked VERY beatable after his reign was done. Also, the only "great" fighter he beat was an OLD Larry Holmes (or a blown up LHW in Michael Spinks). You cant be serious.

And because a legend loses to a fighter, it doesnt make them legends (or superlegends as you put it). All legends have an L on their record except for Marciano, Lopez and Calzaghe (who I think will reach that mark by the time he retires). That statement was ridiculous.

 

Yep ive seen the fight. Jones looked too fast for Hopkins and was in no danger at all of loosing. Perhaps humiliating was a bit of strong word but he won pretty decisively.

I scored the 1st fight for Taylor, didnt bother scoring the 2nd. Regardless, when that fight happened I bet on Taylor to win. He just didnt look that impressive to me prior to that and always thought Tito & Oscar were too small, I thought Eastman stole 3-4 rounds off him. Taylor was the first true good MW he was gonna face and he failed, twice.

When the general public think or talk about Tyson, they will talk about how much of a beast he was in his prime. When people talk about Hopkins prime...theres not really much to say, when was his prime? Loss to Taylor, Loss to Jones? At no point did he ever look unstoppable. I also have Tyson as legendary because although his resume lacks, his fame remains. 20 years on and his still the most popular boxer in the world, fame creates legends.

Just to make this clearer BTW. I listed 3 ways of becoming a legend in the eyes of the people. Ultimate fame (Ali, Tyson, Dempsey, Louis), invincible(prime) aura (RJJ, Tyson) and resume (SRR, SRL, Duran). Which category would you list Hopkins in?

 

Theres a difference between filling Alantic City up and shattering all the PPV records. Also Oscar butt****ed Gatti so lets not compare them im still cringing at DLHs finishing combos.

 

I threw him in there because he won the title back before anyone else when there was only one title

 

Oh and my list was just a brief one there are many other names that can be added .........