A great fighter has a few loses when hes shot how does it affect his legacy?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Big Ukrainian, Apr 25, 2011.


  1. Big Ukrainian

    Big Ukrainian Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,647
    9,463
    Jan 10, 2007
    There are different opinions. Holyfield career is always an example. Some people insist that it doesn't matter when he lost these fights and these losses have serious impact on his legasy. Even though it's obvious that Holy was shot when he lost to Ruiz, Byrd, Toney, Donald. In their ATG rankings Holyfield should have been much higher had he retired at 37 (like Lennox Lewis did).

    Holy isn't the only one here.

    Should you count JC Chaves losses to Willie Wise and Grover Whiley and put him lower in an ATG rankings because of these losses?

    What if Roberto Duran retired earlier without losses to Pat Lawor, William Joppy or Omar Eduardo Gonzalez? Would you rank him higher?

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,565
    Nov 24, 2005
    My instinct tells me those losses are meaningless in considering their All time greatness.
    But I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,766
    47,610
    Mar 21, 2007
    No, but the problem you have is people bandy about the word "shot" far to often. You have to take it as it comes I think. It would be a hard customer that held Langford's losses when he fought as a blind man against him.
     
  4. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    Agreed.

    Old Holyfield was shot after Lewis II, no doubt in my mind.
     
  5. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,665
    2,146
    Aug 26, 2004
    no matter what you say most hold it against a fighter. Weaknesses become magnified once a fighter starts to down slide although usually with experience a fighter knows how to disguise many of them...the experience and know how give a guy who's been around the advantage but reflexes and the legs may hinder.....

    A fighter owes it to himself to get out on top because losses never leave the memory of the observer
     
  6. Pachilles

    Pachilles Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,294
    28
    Nov 15, 2009
    Roy Jones Jr gets **** on the most for this
     
  7. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    The fact that he's shot should be a factor, so leeway should be given, but yes, they count against him.

    If a fighter like Hopkins can be going up in the ATG ranks every time he wins past his prime, because he worked hard to learn the finer technical points of the game, then its only fair other fighters can do the same.

    It also reverses. A loss is a loss is a loss. That he wasn't at his best is taken into account, but he still lost. Roy Jones losses COUNT. He chose to get in the ring, and his legacy is effected atleast somewhat by the outcome. If it is not so, we should stop judging several fighters past their first loss, and that isn't fair to other fighters.

    Also, I agree with the statement above. Shot is bandied about to much. Roy was not shot for Tarver II. He was not shot for Johnson. Past his prime for Tarver, and further removed for each other fight, yes. Far from peak. But a shot fighter to me is one who is literally a shell of himself, and is losing to journeyman pros and the like. Sam Langford towards the end was a shot fighter. Muhammad Ali, in losing to Spinks, showed the decay that says shot fighter. If you are still winning, still pulling the trigger, still showing flashes of your old brilliance (See Roy vs. Lacy, and remember how many picked him to beat Joe Calzaghe) then you have something left in the tank.
     
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,565
    Nov 24, 2005
    Ali was world champion when he lost to Leon Spinks so he deserves to take some flak for that one.
    Maybe he was more "shot" than RJJ v. Johnson partly because he didn't have proper training discipline.
     
  9. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Louis and Ali suffer from this sometimes. That being said they do have a couple good victories after the fact(dodgy ass judging aside)
     
  10. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    Just use common senseand try to be as impartial as you can.


    It's only simpletons like MAG that can't grasp it's quite possible to give a relative amount of credit to a fighter for past-prime achievements while acknowledging they aren't at their best anymore when they lose.
     
  11. john garfield

    john garfield Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,826
    99
    Aug 5, 2004
    It's a little like the blind man that grabs an elephant's tail and says it must be a snake.

    Those that only see the tail end of a great fighter's career -- like Robinson -- 'n say, "He ain't so much."