RJJ or May. Who has the better Legacy? p4p ranking?

Wow. Do you do that for every boxer? Or just Charles and Jones?

Do you stop factoring in anything in Tyson's career post-Spinks? He wasn't said to be as good after Rooney left.

Do you stop factoring anything into Foreman's career after the Ali loss? He was never the same as he was before Ali.

Do you stop factoring in anything in Leon Spinks' career post the Ali-win? He certainly was never as good after.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

Canelo was far more difficult to beat than Ruiz even the punches Ruiz managed to land on Roy didn`t hurt and that`s all he had over Canelo when looking at who presented more of a problem in these respective fights, Canelo fought way better than Ruiz did in these fights.

 

I consider Duran one of the greatest lightweights who ever lived. And when he moved up to welterweight, he started off great. He beat Palomino. He beat Leonard.

But, after 1980, I don't think Duran was "GREAT" by any stretch of the imagination.

Who was Duran GREAT against after 1980 ... beginning with Nino Gonzales when Duran was 72-2.

Duran finished 31-14 after 1980. Is that great?

When ranking the best lightweights ever, I think Duran is right up there near the top.

When discussing pound-for-pound legacies, I don't rate him near the top at all. The last 21 years of his career were, except for maybe two nights, pretty dreadful overall.

And having sat there and watched many of them live, I felt embarrassed or found myself making excuses for him most of the time.

I think Roy Jones and Roberto Duran are near the TOP of the list of boxers who were considered great and then did everything they could in the ring to trash their own legacies.

 

Charles gave Marciano a good tussle that trumps anything Jones did, Charles would have fought far better v Ruiz than Jones did.Foreman was on anoter level to Leon and would have destroyed him.

 

Duran was very good against Davey Moore and good against the much longer armed Hagler he certainly did better than most of Marvin`s opponents.

 

Oscar fought far better v Floyd than Toney did v Roy, he put far more pressure on a fighter that was using movement similar to how Roy did v Toney and he threw far more shots also and had a reach advantage and the punches were coming faster because it was at a lighter weight.

 

Excellent post.

 

Nobody says that about Duran though

 

Leon Spinks? Most people (even Ali detractors such as myself) don’t factor that into anything? He beat the name Ali and nothing more. Ali was but a shell by that point.

 

That's the point you're missing and you keep trying to make mutually exclusive stuff, exclusive to one another. Winning and losing past your prime don't mean the same thing. Losing past your prime is expected, because, well, you're past your prime. That is a very likely outcome. When you somehow win while past your prime, this isn't expected and rightfully should get more praise. Why, because one is expected and the other not expected and shows us something. For example, take Carl Lewis as an example, those 100m and 200m dashes he lost in Atlanta don't carry the same negative weight, as the positive weight he got from winning the long jump. In one instance, he wasn't expected to win because he was well past his best and people were consistently doing better than him. So that was par for the course, you would only hold it against him had he been the favored and should've won. In contrast, he also wasn't expected to win the long jump (though a better chance than the runs), so when he did, he was rightfully praised as example of how good he was in his prime if he could still win past his prime. One rightfully carries more weight and shows up more than another.

Duran, another example, his past his prime wins against Moore and Barkley for example don't prove his was still prime, they prove how good he was that even past it, he could still beat champions because of his technical skill and savy. If you're not expected to win, and shouldn't win, and you lose, it simply shouldn't be counted against you that much. If Cleveland loses to the Patriots, is that something unexpected that we'd say... See I told you they weren't very good. Of course not, this was expected. Now if the undermanned Browns beat the Patriots, this is a sign of some positives that you can draw from. Like, they have far less talent and skill level of the Patriots, but they were still able to use their stout run defense and clock management to win the game. You can't view a win past a fighters prime the same way as a lose of a past prime fighter. They simply are worlds apart in meaning and functionality.

 

I’m not normally a RJJ advocate, and I still think FMJ edges this one.

Link to an article that makes an interesting claim. Says RJJ best more ranked opposition than anyone (not sure if this just means the modern era?). Not sure if anyone wants to dig into this. So while he didn’t have the greatest or biggest names he seems to have fought a boatload of ranked opposition.

http://a.espncdn.com/boxing/columns/kellerman_max/1429488.html

 

no, if lewis had come back in his 40s and lost lots narrowly to middlers, say all the ones who easily destoryed prime wlad, then it would have no bearing on his title legacy. The 2 are mutually exclusive.

larry holmes undefeated streak isnt looked down on simply because he came back as 40something fatty and took some losses. The 2 are mutually exclusive as regards damaging legacy...if anything they improve his legacy.

 

Oscar is Floyd's best win.

Best singular win is just ONE factor to consider out of many others.

Losses are another thing to consider, but again, along with many others.

No, Floyd doesn't come out on top by miles.

How so?

After the losses, they're pretty much even.

You're about done with me?

Oh no.

I'm heartbroken.

 

Duran at 47..? its about him getting beat at 47. it is worthless.

is hopkins legacy ruined for losing his first fight? no. its worthless.

 

There's plenty of questions to be asked.

Lots of factors to be considered.

It's just that you don't have the required amount of intellect needed to see them.