How Badly Do Losses Effect Your Rating Of A Boxer From History?

[elmersalsa]

Not training isn't an excuse. If you didn't train, and the other dude did. The other dude is better than you. Period.

Duran had just beaten Leonard his all time greatest win prior to the 2nd fight with Leonard. You don't go from capable of your all time greatest win to "Past your prime" in the blink of an eye just because you f*cking lost.

Sometimes a guy is just better than you.

I have never said that when he lost to Leonard he was not prime. I said that his prime ended at No Mas. You can lose in your prime. That happened to almost every great boxer. The question is, did the guy looked as his very best. Leonard looked as his very best when he lost to Duran. He looked at his very best in the rematch. Not Duran.

I give De Jesus much more credit.

[jwfg]

The DeJesus loss counts. The Leonard loss counts. The Benitez loss counts. If that is all that we count, OK. The problem is that some people don't want to go that far.

The ONLY MAN to beat Roberto Duran at his very best was Esteban De Jesus. Give De Jesus credit for that.

Sugar Ray Leonard didn't do it. And Wilfred Benitez didn't do it at Duran's very best.

To me, the De Jesus loss was the most legit. But, in many people's view, they didn't give Esteban the credit he deserves.

Do you apply the same logic to every boxer?

[oogiebe]

Depends on:
how was the loss and against what kind of fighter.
What stage of their career?
who?
And maybe most important, how did they respond.

[elmersalsa]

The DeJesus loss counts. The Leonard loss counts. The Benitez loss counts. If that is all that we count, OK. The problem is that some people don't want to go that far.

The ONLY MAN to beat Roberto Duran at his very best was Esteban De Jesus. Give De Jesus credit for that.

Sugar Ray Leonard didn't do it. And Wilfred Benitez didn't do it at Duran's very best.

To me, the De Jesus loss was the most legit. But, in many people's view, they didn't give Esteban the credit he deserves.

Do you apply the same logic to every boxer?

Yes, of course. The problem here is because Sugar Ray Leonard and Wilfred Benitez we're greater boxers than Esteban De Jesus, De Jesus win over Duran at his very best is waaaayyyy overlooked.

The guy De Jesus beat Duran fairest of the fairest and squarest of squares.

De Jesus was a legit and excellent boxer that doesn't get the credit that he deserves.

[jwfg]

The ONLY MAN to beat Roberto Duran at his very best was Esteban De Jesus. Give De Jesus credit for that.

Sugar Ray Leonard didn't do it. And Wilfred Benitez didn't do it at Duran's very best.

To me, the De Jesus loss was the most legit. But, in many people's view, they didn't give Esteban the credit he deserves.

Do you apply the same logic to every boxer?

Yes, of course. The problem here is because Sugar Ray Leonard and Wilfred Benitez we're greater boxers than Esteban De Jesus, De Jesus win over Duran at his very best is waaaayyyy overlooked.

The guy De Jesus beat Duran fairest of the fairest and squarest of squares.

De Jesus was a legit and excellent boxer that doesn't get the credit that he deserves.

So every loss Leonard had above welterweight doesn't count?

[Syntax Error]

Leonard loses to Terrible Terry Norris. Should it count? No. Then why Duran's losses should count when Leonard was almost the same age as Duran when he lost to Norris? There, there are no excuses for Duran, but there are excuses for Leonard. Ali lost to Norton at that same age as both of them.

Actually Duran famously makes excuses for every one of his losses, and I'd have thought this was a well known fact.

Everybody got EXCUSES. But, Terry Norris beats Leonard and it doesn't count by many that he was washed up. Wasn't Duran at that same age as Leonard when he lost to Hearns, Benitez and Marvelous?

Ages are irrelevant; it's what a fighter has left that counts.

Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson highlight this,

When they fought, Tyson was actually the younger man by a year, yet Tyson was completely shot as opposed to Lewis who was still the heavyweight champion of the world and almost still in his prime.

You can't compare Leonard and Duran at respective equivalent ages because Leonard was shot at 34, as crazy as that sounds, but he was nothing like the Leonard of a decade earlier.

Duran had a lot more left when he was 34.

[elmersalsa]

Do you apply the same logic to every boxer?

Yes, of course. The problem here is because Sugar Ray Leonard and Wilfred Benitez we're greater boxers than Esteban De Jesus, De Jesus win over Duran at his very best is waaaayyyy overlooked.

The guy De Jesus beat Duran fairest of the fairest and squarest of squares.

De Jesus was a legit and excellent boxer that doesn't get the credit that he deserves.

So every loss Leonard had above welterweight doesn't count?

The Terrible Terry Norris and Hector "Macho" Camacho fights don't count in my view.

But, people always count the Duran knockout loss to Thomas Hearns. But, when Leonard lost to Norris, the excuse is that he was shot. And Duran wasn't washed up at 33 fighting in a weight class that never favored him? That's double standard right there.

[elmersalsa]

Actually Duran famously makes excuses for every one of his losses, and I'd have thought this was a well known fact.

Everybody got EXCUSES. But, Terry Norris beats Leonard and it doesn't count by many that he was washed up. Wasn't Duran at that same age as Leonard when he lost to Hearns, Benitez and Marvelous?

Ages are irrelevant; it's what a fighter has left that counts.

Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson highlight this,

When they fought, Tyson was actually the younger man by a year, yet Tyson was completely shot as opposed to Lewis who was still the heavyweight champion of the world and almost still in his prime.

You can't compare Leonard and Duran at respective equivalent ages because Leonard was shot at 34, as crazy as that sounds, but he was nothing like the Leonard of a decade earlier.

Duran had a lot more left when he was 34.

Age is relevant in any sport, especially in boxing. And worse if a fighter is moving up to other weight classes.

If Lennox Lewis would have fought lots of fights and started as a teenager, by the age of 36 he would have been washed up. Ask the greats Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Sugar Ray Robinson, Ruben Olivares, Roberto Duran, Alexis Arguello, Willie Pep , etc, etc, etc.

They started young and finished old with lots of fights.

If Leonard was washed up at 34, then how could he be better than Duran who fought much more, started professional boxing at a younger age at 15 and even retired after Leonard?

Why his loss to the great Thomas Hearns counts, but Leonard's loss to Terrible Terry Norris doesn't. They were about the same age when they lost. That's double standard.

[jwfg]

Yes, of course. The problem here is because Sugar Ray Leonard and Wilfred Benitez we're greater boxers than Esteban De Jesus, De Jesus win over Duran at his very best is waaaayyyy overlooked.

The guy De Jesus beat Duran fairest of the fairest and squarest of squares.

De Jesus was a legit and excellent boxer that doesn't get the credit that he deserves.

So every loss Leonard had above welterweight doesn't count?

The Terrible Terry Norris and Hector "Macho" Camacho fights don't count in my view.

And the draw against Hearns, that doesn't count either?

[elmersalsa]

So every loss Leonard had above welterweight doesn't count?

The Terrible Terry Norris and Hector "Macho" Camacho fights don't count in my view.

And the draw against Hearns, that doesn't count either?

It was a draw, but I saw Thomas Hearns winning like a lot of people saw it. Both were not at their very best nor at their prime weight when they fought the second time around. The rematch should have been before 1985 from welterweight to middleweight. That was their weight range. I don't doubt a Hearns win there. He had sturdier legs and hit harder above welterweight.

You could say that it doesn't count either. But the competitive nature of two washed up legends at 168lbs could be a defining fight. Just like Ali vs Frazier III was a defining fight.

[jwfg]

The Terrible Terry Norris and Hector "Macho" Camacho fights don't count in my view.

And the draw against Hearns, that doesn't count either?

It was a draw, but I saw Thomas Hearns winning like a lot of people saw it. Both were not at their very best nor at their prime weight when they fought the second time around. The rematch should have been before 1985 from welterweight to middleweight. That was their weight range. I don't doubt a Hearns win there. He had sturdier legs and hit harder above welterweight.

You could say that it doesn't count either. But the competitive nature of two washed up legends at 168lbs could be a defining fight. Just like Ali vs Frazier III was a defining fight.

What about SRR, surely all of his losses were not at his best weight, welter?

[Joson]

In assessing the so-called "greatness" of the ATG's, in my opinion, we should only count fights that occurred during their prime years, and not before or after that peak period.

This means we ignore ATG's very early losses, when he was just a novice pro. Ditto for the other end of the age spectrum: we don't pay attention to losses if they occurred when he was getting old.

Duran's real prime was 1972 through 1979. That's when Roberto held the world lightweight title, fighting at a lean, strong, and energetic 135 lbs. On a pound-for-pound, inch-for-inch basis, that seven year period saw Duran at his very best.

Or, for Duran, we could extend the window of his prime up to 1980, when he first beat Leonard, ran his record up to 72-1, and took the WBC welterweight title. Roberto excelled at 147 lbs, although carrying that extra weight meant he wasn't quite as dynamic as he'd been at lightweight.

But even though Duran was starting to decline at the time of the first Leonard fight, we still include it in his prime because winning that bout was an extraordinary achievement.

Should we include the Leonard II, Benitez, or Hearns fights in our assessment of Duran? Maybe, maybe not. He was in deep decline by those years. But, then again, Roberto giving Hagler a tough tiff at 160bs certainly enhances his "greatness," reminding us of how much better he'd been as a lightweight.

[jwfg]

Should we include the Leonard II, Benitez, or Hearns fights in our assessment of Duran? Maybe, maybe not. He was in deep decline by those years. But, then again, Roberto giving Hagler a tough tiff at 160bs certainly enhances his "greatness," reminding us of how much better he'd been as a lightweight.

He went from prime (Leonard I) to deep decline (Leonard II) in 158 days?

[Joson]

Should we include the Leonard II, Benitez, or Hearns fights in our assessment of Duran? Maybe, maybe not. He was in deep decline by those years. But, then again, Roberto giving Hagler a tough tiff at 160bs certainly enhances his "greatness," reminding us of how much better he'd been as a lightweight.

He went from prime (Leonard I) to deep decline (Leonard II) in 158 days?

Let's look at it this way: Roberto was physically unfit for the Leonard II fight, including gastro-intestinal problems. It's hard to take this fight seriously as a measure of his ability given those facts.

[Joson]

Muhammad Ali is another case in point. In assessing Ali's stature as an ATG, it would be foolish to focus on the Spinks fights, both of which happened when Ali was totally shot. Same for his Berbick loss.

Rather, we focus on Ali's prime years, from 1964 up through the third Frazier fight in 1975. That's the period when he fought his best, and showed his true abilities. His defeats to Frazier and Norton, in 1971 and 1973, happened during during this period, BTW.

[Ezzard]

Muhammad Ali is another case in point. In assessing Ali's stature as an ATG, it would be foolish to focus on the Spinks fights, both of which happened when Ali was totally shot. Same for his Berbick loss.

Rather, we focus on Ali's prime years, from 1964 up through the third Frazier fight in 1975. That's the period when he fought his best, and showed his true abilities. His defeats to Frazier and Norton, in 1971 and 1973, happened during during this period, BTW.

Everything you say makes sense but it's emotional for people here. Nothing triggers the forum members more than a Leonard/Duran debate.

[jwfg]

Should we include the Leonard II, Benitez, or Hearns fights in our assessment of Duran? Maybe, maybe not. He was in deep decline by those years. But, then again, Roberto giving Hagler a tough tiff at 160bs certainly enhances his "greatness," reminding us of how much better he'd been as a lightweight.

He went from prime (Leonard I) to deep decline (Leonard II) in 158 days?

Let's look at it this way: Roberto was physically unfit for the Leonard II fight, including gastro-intestinal problems. It's hard to take this fight seriously as a measure of his ability given those facts.

So, Duran gets a pass. That's never happened before.

[Controversial]

Let's look at it this way: Roberto was physically unfit for the Leonard II fight, including gastro-intestinal problems. It's hard to take this fight seriously as a measure of his ability given those facts.

The trouble with excuses from fighters is you only hear them from the loser. I'm sure if SRL lost the rematch we would've heard his camp was poor, he was carrying an injury blah bah blah. No fighter enters the ring in 100% tip top condition, most are carrying some sort of injury or niggle, especially the top fighters who are in their 30s and have put their bodies through hell for years and years.

[Syntax Error]

Muhammad Ali is another case in point. In assessing Ali's stature as an ATG, it would be foolish to focus on the Spinks fights, both of which happened when Ali was totally shot. Same for his Berbick loss.

Rather, we focus on Ali's prime years, from 1964 up through the third Frazier fight in 1975. That's the period when he fought his best, and showed his true abilities. His defeats to Frazier and Norton, in 1971 and 1973, happened during during this period, BTW.

Everything you say makes sense but it's emotional for people here. Nothing triggers the forum members more than a Leonard/Duran debate.

It seems as if a lot of threads end up being hijacked by a Duran/Leonard argument on this forum for some inexplicable reason.

In respect of this thread it's even more inexplicable as there is nothing to argue about.

It's a fact, Leonard wasn't as good at aged 34 as Duran was at aged 34 & the obvious question is, so what?

It's well known & not up for debate & is part of the reason why Duran ranks higher on p4p lists because most people combine such lists with longevity in mind.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think "longevity" is sort of a vague term that people use when it helps the case of a fighter that they like but ignore in cases when it favors the other guy.

What does it really matter how long a guy fought? Does it really matter if Fighter A retired in say his early 30s and Fighter B fought into his 40s? So what fighter B beat a bunch of stiffs when he was in late 30s and early 40s. when he was old?

Most people (not everyone) realizes that losses when a fighter is clearly past it doesn't mean much. The same with meaningless wins.

Controversial made a good statement - "The trouble with excuses from fighters is you only hear them from the loser."
Somes excuses for losses are legit, as people have mentioned before. Many aren't. Everyone has personal problems. A guy could be 40-5. There will be an excuse for all the losses. It doesn't even occur to them to question any of the wins.

[Controversial]

Controversial made a good statement - "The trouble with excuses from fighters is you only hear them from the loser."

Blimey, is that a compliment lol

[elmersalsa]

Longevity is a big factor when ranking boxers. Add consistency and durability, too.

[Ambling Alp II]

Why should longevity matter?

[elmersalsa]

Why should longevity matter?

It tells the durability and consistency of an athlete not only in boxing, but in all sports.

[Syntax Error]

I think "longevity" is sort of a vague term that people use when it helps the case of a fighter that they like but ignore in cases when it favors the other guy.

What does it really matter how long a guy fought? Does it really matter if Fighter A retired in say his early 30s and Fighter B fought into his 40s? So what fighter B beat a bunch of stiffs when he was in late 30s and early 40s. when he was old?

Most people (not everyone) realizes that losses when a fighter is clearly past it doesn't mean much. The same with meaningless wins.

Controversial made a good statement - "The trouble with excuses from fighters is you only hear them from the loser."
Somes excuses for losses are legit, as people have mentioned before. Many aren't. Everyone has personal problems. A guy could be 40-5. There will be an excuse for all the losses. It doesn't even occur to them to question any of the wins.

You've got a point, it is a vague term and I myself cannot put a figure on it.

I think we can all appreciate when fighters excel or dominate long past their best days or weight class; Muhammad Ali and Roberto Duran spring to mind, to name but two, thus enhancing their standing in the sport.

Boxing is littered with fighters who were phenomenal but only for a short period; I think of Riddick Bowe who looked like an ATG in the making when he beat Holyfield in 1992, but suffered a short prime, or Donald Curry who looked like the pseudo GOAT the night he beat Milton McCrory only to crash and burn not that long after.

Like you have said, we can recognise when a fighter loses when no longer in their prime and should not affect their ranking in the sport.