Incidentally, Ricky Hatton gets "ruined" on a nightly basis between fights but is still on top of the division!
David Reid against Tito Vargas against Tito Tito ruined alot of fighters. Taylor against Chavez I don't think Calzaghe ruined Lacy he wasn't all that in the first place he was very limited and flawed with a bunch of KOS over no-hopers. His shoulder injury also helped to contribute to his downfall as well.
To be clear I'll add again that there certainly ARE cases of fighters getting ruined in a single fight, but they are uncommon. Most of the time a bad loss is just that, and there is no reason to believe it really "destroyed" a fighter the way it is often suggested.
Golota v. Bowe Golota v. Sanders Even if Golota lost he always had the potential to wreck your career...just look at Michael Grant too.
David Reid was never gonna be anything special anyway, and was rushed into the Tito fight because his ppl wanted to cash him out due to his eye. Taylor would have ruled 140 for some time had Chavez not been around. He might not have been "ruined" by that fight, he was never the same afterwards either. Vargas was never the same after the Tito fight either. An example of a fighter truly "ruined" by a fight is Mugabi after Hagler was done with him.
I see someone is a Golota nut hugger. The Holyfield trilogy ruined Bowe... that and his terrible eating habits. The Bowe that fought Golota was a shell of the Bowe of 92-93. And Golota didnt ruin Grant... he just exposed him. Grant was always destined to fail... he was a huge hype job.
Taylor wasn't quite the same post-Chavez, but he was still a pretty good fighter. He took too much punishment in general. That Norris fight was a poor decision by management in my opinion.
There was no "allegedly" about it. They found steroids in his system after the De La Hoya through the drug test. He took them, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Quite agree. I've always thought that thogh Holyfield lost the final battle, he won the war as Bowe looked dreadful in by halfway through the third fight (Holy walked on to a HUGE shot that started to be his downfall) and then the Golota bouts
This post was in response to this: So I say Calzaghe was a far better boxer and beat him convincingly, but because I dont believe that a points defeat psychologically ruins a fighter and his abilities to compete, I am considered to be carrying out some sort of vendetta against Joe Calzaghe???? Words fail me. The mentality of the Fanboy Playground beggars belief sometimes. Grow the **** up please, for all our sakes.
What is very tiring and pathetic is childish accusations whenever any point is made that even features Joe C. His fans are becoming feverish in their desperation to defend him against attacks that aren't even being made. My post was more about the thread-subject, more about Lacy, more about what ruins a fighter and what doesn't, than it was about Joe Calzaghe - but because his name featured, the slavering fanboys must spring into action, eh?! (even when I make note that Calzaghe was the far superior boxer and won easily!!!!! Unbelievable.) I often hear it said that the Calzaghe defeat "ruined" Lacy. It is the most often heard example of what this thread is about. Personally, I don't believe a wide points defeat does that to a fighter. I think it is more likely to be the shoulder surgery that has hampered Lacy's ability to detonate his best weapon. If saying that makes me a "blind hater", then you can go **** yourself, I'm happy to keep posting what I believe.
Some fighters can be ruined, mostly due to a destructive defeat. But in the case of Lacy, he was limited to begin with, and after he lost the wide UD to Calzaghe he had surgery and lost the ability to use the only real weapon that he ever really had.
This has lead to some interesting debates, and seems to highlight the grand ambiguity and dissent over what it even means for a fighter to be "ruined". A lot of confusion arises out of us having no steadfast definition of what "ruined" constitutes. Does "ruined" mean the fighter immediately declined following the fight in question, but was still a top fighter? Does it mean that a fighter could no longer perform not only at his best, but at the elite level at all? It would be interesting to get some input as to how people view this term to dispel some of the confusion surrounding it.
Some (many) will disagree with this, but I think today's fighters are much more finely tuned machines - generally speaking - than the old timers were, and they are pushing their bodies much harder. To succeed at the top level in today's game you have to be at your absolute optimum both physically and mentally, and a bad beating can take that mental edge away, which sometimes is enough to drop an A level fighter down a notch. This doesn't apply in every case, but I think it's the case more often now than in the old days and that's why you see more fighters show such a dramatic decline in performance after one bad shellacking than you used to.