Past Prime = Win/Win

Well, sure. I get what you are saying. But it isn't win/win. The old timer may gain more in the way of status with a win, but every loss on the wrong side of prime is a step closer to the scrap heap. A step closer to irrelevance. It brings them closer to the end of earning potential.

Yes, Roy's prime years were astounding, but what wins did he get that involved a win/win scenario? Which young fighter should get more credit for beating him than hasn't? I'd argue fighting on absolutely did tarnish his career. He's a legend because of what he did in his prime.

Young fighters fight those guys to get the name on their resume, even if just the name, and the ability to make money from it, and future earning opportunities. It's part of the food chain of boxing.

 

For me, it's not so bothersome as long as everyone understands the situation *before* the fight. What I dislike is when a fighter is considered slightly past prime and then gives a poor performance, causing the victor to get no credit for defeating a shot fighter. The victor in that situation didn't know what he would be getting and imo should get full credit for the win based on expectations heading into the fight.

A recent example is people who try to deny Joshua credit in Ruiz II based on Ruiz being out of shape. Joshua didn't know that Andy would mainline ranch dressing even more than usual, and as such he should get full credit for the redemption. Or Holyfield/Douglas. Not remembered as a huge victory because Douglas was a blimp and never accomplished anything after Tyson, but unjustly so from Holy's perspective.

 

True. Prime Alvarez would beat Mayweather into the floor, and I'm not Alvarez fan.

 

I wouldn't say he was still excellent when he fought Leonard. He looked slow, ponderous and extremely hittable against both Roldan and Mugabi. He still had the chin and power, hence the Hearns victory, but none of the quickness and reflexes he demonstrated throughout his career. His feet looked like they were in quicksand at that stage.

 

Yes. But how is that win/ win for the older fighter? How does he win by losing? Gets beat up, and fades into retirement or irrelevancy? How would whatevet credit the younger fighter get affect the older fighter?

 

Man you are missing the point completely. It isn’t a win as a a W on his record. The winning even from losing is that he got a big payday and it will not affect career legacy. As for fading into retirement or irrelevancy that’s going to happen regardless. So any meaningful fight they can get and one that is lucrative it’s win win. Even if they don’t pull it of.

 

I get the point. I’m not saying a W on his record. If they lose, it is a negative for them. It can hurt their legacy. Earning power, relevancy. All are negatively impacted. Only in very rare occasions would it not be.

 

It’s not negative for them at all. They are already in their twilight of there career. How is it impacting their earning power when they are cashing out while they still can? I can’t think of one fighter that fought longer than they should where it impacted their legacy. Maybe I’m missing a fighter but name one where he used his name to continue fighting where it affected his legacy.

 

Off the top, well, RJJ, as was mentioned previously. People say Calzaghe would havr bearen him at any point because he beat a multiple KOd version years later. Shane Mosley. Hatton. JCC. Malignaggi. There are obvious more, but you get the drift.


So, inagine a 41 year old GGG with 1 loss and 1 draw takes on David Morrell, who KO’s him in 3 rds, ruining GGG’s quest for a title at a 2nd weight. Morrell then gets stopped in his next fight. Losses the next via decision. Is called a hype job.
How would history view GGG?

 

that's a non-statement considering floyd wasn't a 160 fighter, never mind 168.

 

Roy Jones is a lock all time great. I have no idea where you think his continued fighting has done anything to his legacy. He has cashed out long time ago and continue fighting from stubbornness. Shane Mosley legacy is intact too. Hatton didn’t fight pass his prime. Not sure how he fits in cause he was prime. His claim to fame was Tyzu and was it. JCC? You kidding me ? Dude is a legend. Him fighting longer had ZERO impact on his legendary status. So I still have no idea what you are trying to argue about.

GGG is different. He is a belt holder. The younger fighter wants his belt , his name , and a payday. Very different then an older fighter continuing to fight because he can and still commands a decent pay. If GGG does lose it does impact his career but not as much as if would have lost in his mid 30s. People are already rumbling he is slipping and in his 40 if he lost to a scrub it just prove people right that he is done.

 

Come on. RJJ is still an atg, but to say he didn’t lose something after a bunch of losses and KO’s just isnt accurate. Guys are saying Calzaghe would always beat him because he beat the shot version. Its the perfect example. Danny Green KO1. Glen Johnson made his career when he KO’d him. Now he’s called a glass-jawed fraud. His standing took hits because he fought on for years, and guys were riding the name he’d established a years earlier. Again, the perfect example. How would he be viewed had he retired earlier, minus all those KO’s and losses on his ledger? Had he retired after Tarver 2, with 1 KO loss people would legit be arguing that he is a top 10 ATG.

Mosely didnt take a hit? Are you kidding? Well beyond his prime, dude lost to Mundine and Avenesyan, lol. You think 10 losses accurately reflects his legacy? I don’t. How would he have been viewed if he had retired after, say, Mayweather?

Hatton getting stopped by Senchenko who was subsequently stopped by Paulie Malignaggi doesn’t affect his standing? I think you are giving the public too much credit.and the blessings of a good memory. Regular boxing fans are not as discerning as most of us here.