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

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on here.

Once again, any knowledgeable fan should be able to apply the relevant context that is needed.

It really is that simple.

It’s not about pretending that things didn’t happen. Again, it’s about putting them into context.

Muhammad Ali lost to Berbick. It meant nothing. It cannot affect his historical ranking. He shouldn’t have been granted a license to fight.

You’re moaning about Duran looking awful when he was fat and in his 40’s. The man fought over 100 times and couldn’t let go. It happens. It’s sad to watch. I watched it. But I wasn’t sat there thinking to myself:

“Hey, maybe Duran wasn’t as great as I once believed”

I was sat there like you watching him bloated in his 40’s, thinking to myself:

“I hope he doesn’t get hurt and he retires soon”

So yeah, he was rubbish in his 40’s. But that’s because he was in his 40’s and out of shape.

What, you’re going to look at the Joppy loss when ranking him historically?

Regarding Roy, who cares??

Use your intelligence.

Use your knowledge of the man’s career.

Yes, like Duran, it was awful to see a fat Roy Jones fight until he was 50 years old. But again, if you are a knowledgable fan and you possess knowledge of his era and his career, you put those losses and performances into context.

The loss to Enzo Mac means NOTHING when ranking Roy. He should have been 10 plus years retired at home fishing at that point.

It’s completely irrelevant when ranking him.

If a fan can’t distinguish between pre-prime, prime, post prime and shot, then I don’t even want to converse with such an idiot.

 

Unless you apply the same to EVERYONE, of course it's agenda-driven.

Roy Jones didn't start losing badly when he was 49. He was getting knocked cold repeatedly in his 30s.

So if you're going to simply ignore half of his career, can we ignore half of Pinklon Thomas' career, too?

Pinklon fought for 15 years. He clearly didn't look as good in Year 8 against Berbick in '86 as he did earlier in his career. So should we not count his losses to Berbick, Tyson, Holyfield, Hunter, Bowe, Morrison, Carter ...

And just pretend Pinklon Thomas finished his career UNDEFEATED with wins over Quick Tillis (when he had one loss), Witherspoon (when he only had one loss), Weaver (when he was the top contender) and a single draw against the #1 rated Coetzee?

Is that what we're doing now?

Because we could put together a pretty "interesting" list of Hall of Famers based on HALF or ONE-THIRD of someone's career.

 

People can hold the losses to Tarver and Johnson against him, as he was still a top level fighter at that point.

I’m not talking about that.

I’m talking about the losses to Green, Lebedev and Enzo Mac.

Anybody who can’t see those losses for what they were is a clown.

It’s not that people like me are biased.

It’s that some people just aren’t intelligent enough to be able to apply the relevant context that’s needed.

 

It's applied to everyone.... jesus

 

He was?

Says who? You?

Roy Jones didn't look like a top-level fighter losing every round to Glen Johnson before getting knocked stiff. I never saw Johnson dominate anyone like that.

I think some of your brethren might argue that wasn't Roy Jones - the top level fighter who fought James Toney.

Then again, I don't pick and choose which fights I include in their careers. The fighters do that for me by fighting those bouts.

 

You got it wrong. He has Mayweather and Marciano #1 & #2, because they never lost. LOL

 

No, I certainly do not. Clearly based on that comment YOU don't get it.

 

Take a step back and think before you type.

Stop being stupid.

Pinklon Thomas was inconsistent for a number of reasons, but he was still a top level fighter for many of those fights.


After Glen Johnson bullied Roy Jones for 9 rounds before knocking him cold, it was absolutely crystal clear that Roy Jones was no longer an elite level fighter.

By the time that Enzo Mac got to him, he was literally no longer a world class fighter.

That is the difference.


Mike Tyson lost to TWO guys who were EUROPEAN LEVEL fighters for their entire careers.

When it gets to that sad stage, yes, the wins are absolutely completely irrelevant.

Yes, they’re horribly cringeworthy and embarrassing, but they do not in any way whatsoever affect Mike’s historical ranking.

It’s not agenda driven. It’s having a brain in your head and being able to see what’s what.


Roy losing to Antonio Tarver hurts is legacy.

Roy losing to a European level fighter at 46 means NOTHING.

If you can’t grasp that, then there’s no point in replying back to me.

 

I don't have to pretend only half of Lennox Lewis' career counts and the other half where he lost 10, 15 or 25 times to scrubs and came in bloated and overweight and didn't try ... doesn't count.

Because he didn't finish his career that way.

If you don't want me to count that as part of your career, don't lose 25 times and look like garbage and fight 15 or 20 years past your sell date.

 

Ottke #3

 

It sounds stupid because what you are doing is stupid.

If you don't want us to count the losses and the bad performances, and the decades when guys fought after they should've retired ... then they should NOT have taken those fights and turned in those crap performances.

Once they take those fights, once they turn in those crap performances, that is just as part of their career as the glorious nights when they looked great.

I judge a fighter based on his career. It was his career. He fought those fights. I didn't pick them for him. I didn't tell him to fight them.

I judge his career based on his perfomance in all those fights. Because ALL those fights constitute his CAREER. The first to the last.

Not just 'some fights here and there' until it gets embarrassing.

 

The Tarver loss obviously hurts him.

The Johnson one shouldn’t hurt him that much, because like you’ve noted, it was clear that something was amiss. But it will hurt him because going into the fight he’d only had the one clear loss at that point.

I’m not talking about my personal opinion. What I’m saying, is that I have to rightly expect that the boxing world will hold those losses against him.

The majority will argue that he was still a top 10 P4P fighter at that point.

Again, I’m talking about the losses after he was 40 and clearly shot.

Again, I’m talking about an out of shape 40 odd year old Duran getting beaten by guys most people have never heard of.

Those are the types of losses that have zero relevance.

Again, it’s not about ignoring them.

It’s about seeing them for what they were.

 

One other thing, most boxing fans consider an ATG's accomplishments. Who they beat.. You view it differently. You are not right or wrong. You have an opinion based on what you believe. For example, you can have a fighter that has 60 wins, 10 losses. He accomplished unifying 2 divisions, became undisputed in another. Gave 10 undefeated fighters their first loss, 6 of which went on to be first ballet HOF'ers. He lost 8 of the 10 fights past prime, of those 8, 6 went on to go into the HOF, became multiple weight champs.

I get that you don't get my sarcasm.

 

So, if Lennox did lose miserable, say 5-6 times, how would you rank him, who would put above him?

 

How many more times??

You are being both ignorant and argumentative.

If you are watching a fighter who is CLEARLY NO LONGER A WORLD CLASS fighter, then any losses at that point don’t mean anything.

Can you not decipher when someone is shot or not?


When Mike Tyson couldn’t beat a career European level HW, you knew that it was time to hang them up.


Yes, Lennox retired at the right time.

Let’s for the sake of argument say that he didn’t though, and that he lost to McBride and Williams.

Let’s say that I proclaimed Lennox to be the GOAT at HW.

Then what?

You’d argue that he wasn’t based on those defeats?


Look, this is how simple it should be to anyone:


If a fighter loses at the top level, it affects his ranking.

If a fighter is so washed up that he’s literally no longer a world class fighter, then the losses are sad, but also completely irrelevant.