elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 23:03
Also counts in your prime who do you lost to. Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson lost to "inferior boxers" in their prime. They were just better that night. You gotta measure the quality. Tyson lost to a guy (Buster Douglas), that if he took the sport seriously, he would have been an all-time great boxer. That can't be said about Hasim Rahman or Oliver McCall. Even if they took the sport seriously, they would have never been great boxers because they got a limit. That was the best that they could do. There's no thinking nor reasoning that they could have done better than what they did in the sport.
In a post that funnily enough talks about other excuses being made for Mike, this is a pretty heavy one. Just as easily it could be argued that Lewis was never comprehensively outboxed to the same degree Tyson was. He wasn't dominating either fight, but he lost both on the basis of one shot. He also beat Rahman decisively in a rematch. Tyson never got the opportunity to beat Douglas, but all you've got to go off is that he was getting beat in a fight to the degree that Lewis did not for either of his losses.
Buster Douglas' win against Tyson was clearly a bit of a perfect storm, but we also have 44 other bouts to decipher his actual level. If he didn't take any of them seriously (including a pre-Tyson world title shot, a golden opportunity when he'd not exactly had any big money fights before), that's on him.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Sep 2023, 14:46
Why should longevity matter?
It tells the durability and consistency of an athlete not only in boxing, but in all sports.
No, it doesn't. It just shows how long a fighter's career was. You don't have to be necessarily have to be durable to have a long career. You certainly don't to consistent to fight for a long time.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Sep 2023, 08:45
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.
The amount of quality wins is important. The amount of time it takes to do it is irrelevant.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Sep 2023, 14:46
Why should longevity matter?
It tells the durability and consistency of an athlete not only in boxing, but in all sports.
No, it doesn't. It just shows how long a fighter's career was. You don't have to be necessarily have to be durable to have a long career. You certainly don't to consistent to fight for a long time.
Longevity is a great measure to evaluate any athlete. A short career doesn't qualify you as a great one. Ask Bo Jackson.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Sep 2023, 08:45
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.
The amount of quality wins is important. The amount of time it takes to do it is irrelevant.
The amount of quality wins plus the quantity of fights is what matters. Ask Willie Pep
Just spoke with him. He said that the quantity of fights doesn't matter because you can always find an easy opponent to beat. The amount of quality wins does matter a lot..
Pretty much agree with that. you can just look at how many years a guy fought or the number of wins. The amount of quality wins is much more important.
So for example, winning four huge fights in your career is much more impressive than someone who only had one, even if the guy who only had one huge win fought for a longer time and had more fights.
Otherwise, this isn't debatable. We could just look at lists of who won the most fights and who had the longest career. There would be many guys near the top of these lists that nobody thought was anywhere near great.
Ali is a perfect example at heavyweight. His victim's list dwarfs any other heavyweight.
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.
The amount of quality wins is important. The amount of time it takes to do it is irrelevant.
The amount of quality wins plus the quantity of fights is what matters. Ask Willie Pep
Willie Pep best a lot of quality featherweight boxers. Plus, he also beat lots of stiffs. So what you saying?
