When should losses count against your legacy?

As a fighter, losses should always count against against your legacy.

Now the degree to which they count can be affected by things like strength of competition, the degree to which the fighter lost, and whether or not the loss was avenged.

 

Roys losses to Tarver & Johnson count....unfortunately so do the Calzage & Bhops...sorry but we can't just right them off because we don't like them...

Bhop is a ***....waited to roy was a real piece of **** to fight him

 

Eh... not very high. But it definitely still counts against him though. The way I think of it is: Jones' chin was never really built to go past supermiddlewieght. But Johnson was still good enough that I think he gets credit for stopping him.

 

When you're obviously past-it, I don't hold any loss against a fighters legacy. Does anyone seriously think the Berbick loss has even the slightest effect on Ali's ranking. What about Chavez and Grover Wiley or whatever his name was?

I'm more inclined to hold early career losses against someone because they already have their physical attributes but it depends on the case. Arguello, Armstrong and Hopkins lost very early on - considering how little they knew and how much they improved, said losses don't mean much.

Generally, unless you're really green or obviously past-it, defeats count against you.

 

They should still count imo, but obviously not very much. Especially in situations like like Berbick/ Ali.

 

all the time unless you're shot or close to it

 

I suppose theres a weighting on all losses.

Holyfields wins over Tyson obviously have far greater rating than the Williams and McBride fights.

Just like with Ali,we can just wipe out the Holmes/Berbick fights, but obviously the Frazier/Norton losses mean more

 

I'm not sure very early losses should count against legacy. Often that's just the result of bad management. This is especially true for Mexican fighters, many of whom turn pro at like 15 and are fed to the wolves (or feed themselves to the wolves just to earn some scratch).

 

I don't count B-Hop's first loss, and I strongly discredit Pac's first two losses(although he shouldn't have been draining so much weight)

I tend to discount pre and post prime losses mostly...unless a prime loss has some special factor toward it(Like Dawson cutting a division to fight Ward)

 

When a loss comes late in a career after guy has obviously lost some, it can be shrugged off to a degree.

It can also be said when a guy is ambitious and ends up biting of more than he can chew, a a la DLH at mw, etc. I can't fault a guy for testing his boundaries. It's what makes the sport great.

 

Whenever a fighter loses they become the "leftovers" of the fighter that beat them. You didn't know this?

 

1) Very early losses. That depends a bit on the previous experience - so if golden medalist losses his first fight it is different than someone who really had no experience with boxing.

2) Losses when someone is clearly past prime. I realize it makes it a bit like vicious cirle, because usually we consider someone to be past prime when he starts losing, but there are clear cases like for example Holyfield - whatever happens his legacy is secure.

3) Robberies. Seems obvious, but no one mentioned it so far. Also close fights that could go either way do not have such impact like clear losses.

4) Injuries. I mean real injuries, preferably visible during the fight, not some problems with toes or most of the excuses you hear from fighters usually.



Another thing is the quality of opponent. If you fight someone who is at least as good as you, someone is usually going to be a loser. I have no problems with Hearns losing to SRL or Hagler, it is clearly different league than Wlad against Sanders or Brewster. I agree with previous comment about "testing your bondaries" - even fighting way above/below your optimal weight may chage the impact (like with Duran during the later part of his career).