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

I tend to agree with you.

I started following boxing in the mid to late 70s. Jimmy Young was at his peak. He was fighting Ali, Norton, Foreman, Lyle on even terms or beating them. I was a big fan. Then he started losing. Then he seemed to lose for years and years and years. At some point, he finally retired, And you go back and see he was really only good for those three years or so when I started following the sport. For the other 17 or 18 years of his career, he was ordinary to bad. Now, when people in classic talk about how great Young was, it just sounds silly to me. Because he was so bad for practically his entire career. He was only really good for a couple years.

Same with guys like Roberto Duran, Evander Holyfield and Roy Jones. I watched a LOT of really bad Roberto Duran fights live. But Roy Jones in particular. When Jones was like 49-1 and had knocked off Ruiz for a heavyweight belt, I was on a message board where really highly regarded boxing people were saying Roy Jones is arguably the greatest fighter who ever lived ... and a couple months later he seemed to get knocked cold right and left and couldn't beat anyone for a while.

Now, you look back, and Roy Jones was truly great for about 14 years, and he's been mediocre or worse for nearly 20 years. In no way is he remembered like he was back in 2002 or 2003. He's been bad longer than he was ever great.

I think people who come to the sport read about the "greats" and give them a pass. Because they likely didn't see the fights where they were truly bad. They've only watched the great performances. But I think you have to consider ALL of it.

If you watched LIVE while a really fat Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit by Pat Lawlor, it's hard to rate them the "best" at anything. If you acknowledge how great they were "for a time" to me you also have to acknolwedge how "truly awful" they also were at times. Not just dismiss the fights you didn't see or don't want to remember with a wave of the hand.

I never understood how guys can rip one fighter apart for losing one or two fights, then proclaim someone else the pound-for-pound something when he was garbage and lost to nobodies for not only years but DECADES.

There needs to be some consistency.

Part of what made fighters like Lennox Lewis great was he got out while he was still on top and he did so against arguably the second-best heavyweight out there at the time. There is merit in that. Rather than spending the last half dozen years of your career like Ezzard Charles losing to one terrible journeyman after another.

 

Nothing is 'erased'. Everyone knows most boxers stay past their effectiveness in boxing. That's where the phrase "Boxer don't retire from boxing, boxing retires them."

When it comes to judging their greatness, both wins and losses are considered. one just has to understand the circumstances of the later fights and judge them according. Should Pac's Loss to Ugas be made in to some fight that requires some major rethinking on his greatness? Nope. Why? Because this old version of Pac isn't indicative of his elite level or what he's accomplished. Just showed he stuck around too long.

 

Right. But if they choose to keep fighting, I think it's more than fair for people to begin to rate them lower.

Manny keeps fighting, so it is totally fair to acknowledge he is 3-2 in his last five fights. And he lost to Jeff Horn and Yordenis Ugas.

The Thurman win was a big boost to his standing ... so if we're going to count the big wins at the tail end of his career, it's fair to count the losses and admit they subtract a little, too.

If he keeps going and goes 3-3 in his last six, or 3-4 in his last seven, it's not going to "help" his standing. It will only hurt it.

I rate fighters on the entirety of their careers ... not just how good they were at their absolute best and ignore all the times they weren't. Because that isn't a fair assessment either, particularly when comparing them to a fighter who, for instance, fought for a long time and didn't lose to the Jeff Horns of the world. They beat "their" Jeff Horn-type opponents.

 

You either die a hero or live long enough to be a villain hahaha thats how fans are

 

Horn's win is considered a terrible decision. And yet, it still stands on his record. No one's trying to say the Horn fight doesn't count. WHyis that even brought up?

Look...you want to include fights that ATG's lose when past prime or about to retire, good for you. You count all of Holyfields losses while old to hinder his status? Roy Jones Junior must now be lucky to make the top 100 ATG list with his last few fights and losses. No one should see Mike Tyson on any top HW list due to his losses late I guess. Muhammed Ali lost to a low level HW in Spinks. No one should consider Ali all that great then. Duran? Forgetabout it...he lost to William Joppy.

Some just try to overanalyze everything. Basically the story of this message board. Critical thinking is so freaking lost on this board.

 

Depends on what you compare. You use Manny, ok. His win over Thurman was made into a big deal. You gloss over the fact by winning that fight, Manny was the oldest fighter in history to win a welter weight belt. Name 10 other welter weights in history that competed at the level Manny has been doing over the last 6 years. But your logic is to discredit or diminish his previous accomplishments because of loses well past his prime. Even if he loses another 10 fights in a row, he still achieved things that other fighters haven't. It has already been written in history. The only way that happens is if another fighter comes along and surpasses his accomplishments.

 

Because once a fighter is past a certain level of operation, you can start to debate how different the result would have been had they been prime.

But you don't even agree with your own post really. You probably, by default, have sugar Ray Robinson as one of the best of all time, despite his losses.

You probably have Ali as one of the greatest heavyweights ever despite his losses.

You probably consider Leonard, Hearns and Duran amongst the best ever despite their losses.

You probably consider Whitaker one of the best ever despite his losses.

No one really holds post prime losses against a fighter once they've retired.

They just pretend to do so now because Pacquiao lost in an upset to Ugas.

 

It's not "over" analyzing anything. It's acknowledging the wins and the losses.

You're not accurately assessing a fighter if you acknowledge only the best performances and ignore the bad ones.

Roberto Duran was truly great for the first decade or so of his career. Without question. But he fought another 20 YEARS after he was truly great. And, during those 20 years, from 1981 to 2001, he wasn't really great at all.

Roy Jones, the same thing. Great for 12 or 13 years. But then he continued fighting for another nearly 20 years. When the bad years outnumber the good years, ignoring that fact becomes almost agenda-driven.

Unless Pacquiao intends to fight for another FIVE decades until he's 90, I don't think he'll fall into the same trap as Duran. (LOL) There aren't enough years left for his great years to be outnumbered by any average to bad years.

But it's better to quit before the bad years start adding up. Because they do tend to take away from how a fighter is viewed by those who actually watch them lose those bouts.

 

I'm not glossing over anything. The Thurman win was great. I think Manny is great. But I'm not going to pretend losing to Jeff Horn and Yordenis Ugas don't take away from his legacy, too.

His record and his career would look better without either of those fights and losses.

So they clearly subtract from it. But his excellent fights will far outnumber the poor ones. He'll never fight long enough where the bad years outnumber the good.

Others can't say the same, though.

 

How in the world is Duran seen as an ATG with his late losses? Are you the only one who recognizes him as nothing special? I mean, he shouldn't be seen as anything special now, because he lost while old. SRR lost several times near the end of his career. How can anyone consider him an ATG??

There's nothing agenda driven. Sorry if this sounds rude, but you just don't understand. There's a disconnect somewhere not clicking.

 

Look at their whole career but recognize their accomplishments and best performances. Fights that happen long past their best I don't hold against guys trying to get paychecks. Robinson has 19 losses, Ezzard Charles has a bunch too, doesn't detract from their accomplishments.

Plenty of fighters enter what can be considered a post prime phase where they continue after their best to mixed/bad results usually. Its just the cycle of a career (for many, not all).

 

In a way, the fact Floyd fought at a high level for about 20 years and never lost is amazing, but then you have to look at in more detail.

With other judges he could have very easily lost to Castillo, Hoya and Maidana. All that changes there is a different number is written on a bit of paper. Does that perception suddenly drop his legacy?

Another thing to consider, would be still have been unbeaten had he faced Casamayor and Freitas at SFW/LW?

Would he still have been unbeaten had he faced Tzyu at LWW?

Would he still have been unbeaten had he faced Mosley, Cotto, Pacquiao and Margarito in their prime?

Would he still have been unbeaten had he faced Winky and Canelo at 154?

Furthermore,had he taken all of those fights and won them how much greater would his legacy be?

Had he taken those fights, won some and lost some, would that have been greater than retiring undefeated the way he did do?

If he lost to Paul on the exhibition would that have detracted from his legacy? If he fights the other brother next year and loses would that detract from it?

A lot to consider.

 

Everything a fighter does in his career is relevant. Some things definitely carry more weight than others though. I assume this has something to do with Pacquiao. I'll bite. Pacquiao is still one the best WWs despite his age. A win over him means something.... but do understand that he is past his best days.

On the other hand take a guy like Ezzard Charles. One of the best P4P fighters ever, top 5 in my opinion. His record was 86-12-1 after going to war with Marciano twice. After Marciano he went 10-13. If you gave Charles one of those 13 losses, it doesn't mean much to me.