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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Louis and Ali suffer from this sometimes. That being said they do have a couple good victories after the fact(dodgy ass judging aside)
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.
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."