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

And to some extent, Leonard.

 

Disagree.

It is very seldom that Leonard is critisized and judged by his past prime losses.

 

I'm usually quite specific. So for instance i'll outline when I believe a fighter's prime is and only hold against him losses in that timeframe.

I.e. Ali is prime, imo, from 64-74 so only losses incurred between them years are held against him.

 

No.........because their legacies would already have been cemented.

 

Depends on the timeframe.

Robinson, Ali, Duran etc all had losses past prime.

It matters little to their current reputations as they are gone from the scene.


Jones gets criticized a fair bit for his current and recent foolishness, but in twenty years time, none of his post Ruiz career will be much counted.

 

I agree with you on the Ali timeframe. His last three losses mean nothing in the great-est scheme of things.

 

Exactly I don't see why a loss you affect anyone's ranking of someone when they were so clearly past their best

 

but if we include past prime wins when ranking fighters (Duran over Barkley), how can we ignore past prime losses?

 

The logic doesn't follow there, Vano.

There's a greater expectation that you're likely to lose when you're past prime.

When you perform as per expectations, that's an ordinary event.

When you exceed expectations, that's extraordinary.

 

Time heals the wound. For instance being 38 years old, I only faintly remember Ali against Holmes and Berbick. But as I got older those memories faded as I got to see film of other Ali fights.

If you are a 15 year old fan of the sport today, you probably not too impressed with Holyfield. But in time if you see the Tyson, Bowe, Moorer, Qawi, Dokes, Stewart, etc bouts, you will probably have a different opinion of Evander...

 

It's obvious because the answer is in the question.

Imagine if lennox lewis came out of retirement today and knocked out wlad. He'd be lauded for such a great achievement because it's completely beyond expectation.

If lewis came back and lost to wlad how could we possibly hold that against him?

For a less extreme example take jones jr now. If he knocked out dawson and pascal it would an amazing achievement but if he were to lose how could it be held against him?

For a less extreme example take hopkins. Despite racking up great victory after great victory, the man is in his late 40's and whilst not shot, he's obviously not in his prime. Beating dawson in a rematch would be another great victory, losing to chad would be no great loss.

 

Look how the loss to Tarver has effected Roy Jones legacy. Of course its not going to effect a fighter like Lennox Lewis who is old and been retired. It can only enhance it, but in the case of a fighter who is dominating and undefeated and then starts to consistently lose post prime it has a big effect in tarnishing their past accomplishments.

 

Bollox mate.

It didn't adversely affect the legacy of robinson, leonard, ali, duran, charles, langford or any other great.

Maybe the tarver ko will be held against jones because he wasn't viewed as shot then, but anything after that ko is not going to be held against him.

Maybe you hold it against him but i'm almost certain history will not.

 

:good

Don't get me wrong, I agree that prime losses mean next to nothing in regard to me ranking fighters. I was just playing devil's advocate.

 

If you were actively watching boxing around the time Jones lost, (not saying you werent), but Jones was thought of quite differently after the loss to Tarver.
Same goes for Tyson who was considered unbeatable before the Douglas fight.

I use these examples because they were both shocking losses to the public and industry.