Why do people discount peoples records once they’re past a certain point

RJJ tarnished his legacy by fighting on too long. Had he retired after he beat Ruiz or Tarver he arguably could have been a top 10 ATG. But he didn't he kept on fighting and lost now he's barely a top 30 atg if that.

 

I totally get it. I view a career in its entirety. You don't.

You like to look at someone at their best and you like to pretend the "bad parts" don't exist.

You like to give them credit for a win if you "think" they'd have beaten someone in their prime.

If everyone agreed we'd only look at fighters at their best and ignore the bad parts of their careers, and if we all agreed if we "thought" they'd win in their primes then the losses shouldn't count, I'm all in.

But the moment YOU or others don't like a fighter, any loss is fair game.

So I just view careers in their entirety.

If someone is great and they know when to get out on time, I give them all the credit for that.

Lennox Lewis retired with a TKO win over Vitali Klitschko, arguably the second-best heavyweight then. He was called out nearly every year since then by someone or another, and he stayed retired. Beat everyone he fought as a pro. Retired on top. Never came back.

I give him credit for not coming back and losing to garbage fighters. He easily could have. He certainly had lots of offers to fight even up to this year.

But I'm supposed to ignore that Holyfield kept fighting, lost to Ruiz, lost to Donald, got knocked out by Toney, lost to Valuev and Ibragimov?

Holyfield could've retired after beating Mike Tyson or Moorer in their rematches and gone down as the third-greatest heavyweight of all time (as Ring voted him that year). But he fought on for another 14 years.

Should I ignore everything that happened after those fights because that's when he wasn't as good anymore?

Apparently, you think so.

I can't. I saw him lose all those fights. He chose to fight them. I chose to watch them. I can't just ignore them.

Evander wanted the glory IF HE WON, right? So he should accept the fallout for losing. He's still an all-timer, but I do think less of him now than I did if he'd have quit after beating Tyson and Moorer.

He'd be viewed higher if he went out without all those losses at the end.

 

Has nothing to do with liking fighters. That comment has nothing to do with me. I said nothing about 'best', I take their accomplishments in to consideration.

 

It seems to me that you don’t rate Duran or Charles as highly as so many other people do. You’re saying that I’m ignoring a portion of a fighters career where they’re past their best and taking losses for years. Yet it seems like you’re the one that’s ignoring the boxing analysts / professionals / historians views on them. You’re ignoring the fact that despite having a prolonged career and ending in strings of losses people still rate them as one of the best fighters. Losses are losses and it was their choice to still continue, whether it was for finances or just their desire for continuing on because they enjoy it. Are people really going to hold Hopkins’ KO loss to Joe Smith against him, especially given his age? Not at all.

You rate fighters based on the ENTIRETY of their careers and others don’t. Everything is subjective at the end of the day. We’ll agree to disagree on it.

 

It’s not about ignoring them and pretending that they never happened. It’s simply about how relevant they are.

If you’re ranking the top 10-20 HW’s of all time, nobody cares that Mike Tyson lost to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.

It’s not going to affect his ranking.

Why?

Because he was completely shot at that point, where he was literally only fighting for the cheques simply because he had to.

It’s relevant context.

As far as I’m concerned, if a fighter has already proven his greatness against great fighters, but then ends his career by losing to B-C level guys way past his prime, even into his 40’s and sometimes beyond, then who cares?

Losses to low level guys would only hurt a fighter’s legacy if they lost whilst they were still somewhat young and/or in their prime. Then you could say that they were overrated and had been exposed etc. Then the losses would be relevant.

A guy like Duran losing at 50, was simply because he was 50 and he shouldn’t have been in the ring. Not because his opponent was so gifted and better than he was.

Again, it’s about context.

It’s not that you’re pretending that they didn’t happen, it’s just that if you’re ranking a fighter’s historical achievements, they just aren’t relevant.

 

I certainly don't rate Ezzard Charles higher than Rocky Marciano like you do, that's for damn sure. (LOL)

As for Duran, the people who rate him highly go out of their way to say they totally ignore basically two-thirds of his career and basically just focus on his lightweight run up to Leonard. The remaining two decades they basically ignore except for one fight here or one fight there. That's for them to rationalize.

They certainly don't ignore two-thirds of just about everyone else's careers.

They're the ones being hypocrites, not me.

 

Any knowledgeable fan is able to apply the relevant context needed.

Roy barely lost rounds for 15 years.

Him losing to guys like Green was embarrassing. But also extremely irrelevant when ranking him or looking at his greatness when he was prime.

 

How are you going to rate them lower after you’ve applied the relevant context?

 

It's people's psychology, and that's why there are so many "independent" media, they know people are emotional and reactive.
I guess that thread is created after Pacquiao's lost.It was strange to see, how in one day he's top 3-5 ATG, and the other day "not sure if he's top 15 ATG".For me, it will be almost the same if Mayweather will return, be beaten at 55 years and people start "no, no, he's not that great, you see".

 

It’s not agenda driven.

It’s about being sensible.

Roy fought low level guys and journeyman until he was 49 years old.

Yes, it can’t be ignored. But at the same time, it has no importance.

It can’t affect his historical ranking.

All of the evidence is there which proves that the only reason he was poor for the last 15 years, is because he was a shell of the guy he’d once been due to his age. Not his opposition. But the vulnerabilities he had due to his age.

 

Roy barely lost rounds for 13 or 14 years ... until 2002 or 2003.

Unfortunately, he fought for ANOTHER 14 years AFTER THAT ... until 2018.

Roy Jones is another guy where you have to "pretend" HALF of his career didn't exist, because anyone watching those fights and some of those awful loses don't think he looks special at all.

Once again, if everyone wants to just agree that we can pretend only ONE-THIRD or HALF of peoples' careers don't matter, we can include a lot more fighters in the GREAT category.

Lots of guys look pretty good for half a career. Or one-third of a career.

But people certainly like to pick and choose who gets that special treatment.

It makes things a lot clearer if you judge rate fighters on their ACTUAL careers and not put blinders on for enormous chunks of it when the mood suits you.

 

It already has. Where have you been?

Who rates Roy Jones today as highly as he was rated when he was 49-1 (and had avenged that one DQ loss with a first-round KO) and beat John Ruiz for his heavyweight belt?

No one.

 

I'm sure Christopher Lovejoy (19-1) would love to know that there is someone who thinks he's p4p better than RJJ

 

Bingo!

 

Going by win/lose record isn't how someone's career is judge. It is called using common sense. You look at entire career.