Perfect (or close to it) retirements.

Shoutout to Carl Froch

 

I'd never heard of him.

 

If the criteria is largely "didn't diminish previous standing" then who doesn't qualify ?
I never mark great fighters down for poor performances years past prime, and every good performance there could therefore be seen as a bonus. But that would allow everyone to be said to have a "perfect (or close to it)" retirement ??
"didn't diminish his (established) legacy" is a low standard for me.

Holmes finally retired for good in 2002. How close is that to perfect ?
How many fights, how many years, are you having to count back to get to your nice perfect retirement point ?
You haven't really clarified that.

I get what you're saying to some degree, and can disagree but understand. I understand that the win over Mercer is a good "bonus" and going 12 with Holyfield was a better result than losing to Tyson in 4 and even losing to Spinks. So despite looking pretty clearly old and past prime, I could see that a 1992 retirement could be interpreted as some sort of good thing or even an improvement on 1986, although I don't interpret it that way myself.

But here's the thing: 1992 wasn't the end of his comebacks. He fought another ten years. He ended in 2002 with the Butterbean fight. Before that he fought a horrible fight with an equally ancient Mike Weaver. And struggled badly with Maurice Harris, a fringe fighter. He was reduced to sideshow freakshow spectacle by the end. He had so many meaningless bottom league fights in those last 10 years looking every inch a middle-aged under-trained imitation of a once-great fighter.
That's not a "close to perfect" retirement, as I see it.


Holmes sticks out like a sore thumb in your original post.

 

Andre Ward's retirement is looking pretty flawless right now.

 

Great shout!

 

Ward is a good shout but it's early days yet.

 

That's the dilemma for us as spectators.
He's winning fights,using skills, entertaining, making money and not sustaining damage, it seems ... So who am I to say it's wrong ?
The only problem then is we're confined to wait and see, and with other fighters that's proved fatal.
I'd err on the side of retiring close to prime, retiring "too soon" even.

I'd even throw some doubt on the wisdom of a 29 or 30 year old Tyson Fury attempting a comeback now, as much as I'd like him to succeed.

 

We must also look at what were so close to perfect retirements. If Louis had stayed retired in 1949, he would've only had one loss that he avenged in dominating fashion. If Ali retired after the Spinks rematch, that would've been a perfect ending. He'd also have beaten everyone he faced, and retired after becoming the 1st man to win the title for the 3rd time. If Holmes wasn't robbed twice against Spinks, he could've retired after being 50-0.

 

Oscar De La Hoya maybe hung around one fight too long but it's no shame losing to Pacquiao.

 

Though I agree Holmes looked much better the 2nd time, I didn't feel like Spinks did enough to take the title.

 

A perfect record but it seems that for some reason he leaves with as many detractors as fans (well, if you go by what a lot of posters say on the General forum here)