Do past-prime/shot losses harm a fighter's legacy

i dont think so.
maybe for haters.

 

Not in my eyes

 

Pretty much this, haters gonna hate...

Most of the time i pretend the fights dont exist like Ali-Berbick

 

Only Jones'.

 

Not a chance.

Who remembers Ezzard Charles for losing 13 times after Marciano? Ray Robinson losing to Memo Ayon? It doesn't hold much value for me. I rate on resume, prime losses and overall doninance first and foremost. 'shot' losses don't come into the equation for me

 

It's circumstantial. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis IMO.

 

It is a little unfair tho. I mean, I rate Duran's win over Barkley very highly as he was considered shot, yet choose to omit his lose to Robbie Sims

 

Yes and no, if Jones had retired after the first Tarver fight he'd be seen as invincible today and many would have him top10 like myself

Sometimes fighters lose slightly past prime or even in their prime and people pull out the 'well he was past prime so it doesn't count' excuse for them

 

God no they don't.

I don't count green losses neither (e.g apostoli's loss to steele or angotts handful of losses before his series with rodak etc.)

 

Yes it matters how they lost, who they lost to and how shot were they and if they had fought this kind of chalenger before or if they were a ducker in there primes.

 

I think it depends on which fighter is being assessed...some fighters get more of a pass than others.

Unjust, but true.

 

As much as it shouldnt it does. What if Tyson retired after the Spinks fight? What if Roy Jones retired after defeating John Ruiz?

These two fighters would be held in much higher regard had they retired at their respective peak.

 

You fight who's out there...and who they put in front of you...that's all a fighter can do...

 

While I dont count them, is it fair that we take past prime wins into consideration when ranking fighters, but not losses?