If there was a compulsory retirement age of 35 for all boxers who's legacy would be most harmed?

He had faded out of public consciousness almost completely during his first retirement. Without the comeback, he'd be unknown to non-boxing fans, so he'd never be hawking grills, which has earned him insane amounts of money.

 

Errrmmm... Eder Jofre.

 

joe cowardzaghe springs to mind up to age 35 he'd beaten nothing except bika and the terrible lacy. One ought to add reid but its hardly a win.

that said, you only get to add 40somethings and injuredkessler after that - perhaps that makes his resume worse!

 

I dunno froch had won a proper world title and had the S6 wins by then.

Only groves and his single "lesser" defence (cant remember the guy) came after.

 

Sugar Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Bernard Hopkins

Roy Jones's would be much better.

Such a rule would never fly, however. Boxers age differently and some guys are practically peak at age 35.

 

Ali would have but Holmes was still 35 when he fought Michael. The fight was in September '85 and Larry hit 36 two months afterwards.

 

That means Roy retires before the second target fight

 

Roy Jones would've benefited the most.

B-Hop would've been considered as a far lesser fighter historically if he had to retire at 35

 

I think despite his loss to Rahman his legacy is definitely enhanced by that late career stuff, especially the Vitali fight, even a spent Lewis beat a live future champ and erased a few chin/toughness questions. the terrible loss to Rahman was erased brilliantly, you couldn't write better. I am not even a massive Lewis fan but his legacy is great.

Mike Tyson could do with the limit being 25 lol

 

I think Ali takes a hit not because his loss to Spinks, but his follow up win against Spinks. It doesn't seem like much of a win but it made him the only 3 time world heavyweight champion.

 

yes calzaghe threw it away to avoid a mando with froch himself. joe wasnt keen on non-wbo defences that he couldnt fit up with weaklings by way of wassen.

 

Robinson never regains the Middleweight Title 5 times {really 6}. Never proves that they comeback by beating Olson for the title 3 years after retiring. He doesn't get his one shot blast of Fullmer which was legendary and gave us a glimpse on film of what the man must have been like in his prime. Also the comeback win over Basillio.

Still would have been regarded as the greatest Welterweight and a helluva Middleweight but he would have been diminished some.

 

If he'd had to retire while he was 35, Jersey Joe Walcott never would've won a heavyweight title. Instead, he'd have gone down as the guy who lost three straight heavyweight title challenges in a row to end his career. A three-time loser. Like Axel Shulz.

I think everyone else mentioned in the heavyweight class had already previously won a heavyweight title at least once before they reached 35. (Like Vitali Foreman, Holyfield, etc.)

By never getting to the top at all, that makes Walcott my pick.

Holyfield and Vitali's legacies would've been greatly impacted if they had to retire at 35, but they had both already won belts earlier. (Holyfield in two divisions. And Vitali having snagged a WBO and WBC belt.)

Walcott wouldn't have won anything. And he'd have retired with a 45-14-2 record. A decent but not very noteworthy career. He may be remembered, if at all, along the same lines as Arturo Godoy, but maybe not as high as Godoy.

 

What a horrible post