Who didn't rate Mike Tyson when he was still unbeaten?

[Cojimar 1946]

You're wasting your time.

Gilgamesh cannot wrap his head around variables, context or nuance.

In this very thread he argued that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton because... Sanders had 4 losses and Norton had 7. Seriously. Look it up. This type of thinking is reflected in literally all his takes.

I hear you.
I have gone back and forth with him a lot in the last several months. Much more since he came out with his silly ranking system.
How about him ranking Tommy Morrison higher than Norton as well?
He actually brought up Morrosin having asuccessful title defense and Norton not having one. Morrison beat a club fighter who was a last minute subsitutue. norton lost a great fight to Larry Holmes!

He actually gives Morrison more credit for beat Tim Tomashek than Ron Lyle or Pinklon Thomas gets for their entire careers.!

Lyle gets no points for beating Bonavena or Bugner. Jerry Quarry gets nothing for beating Mathis.

Jersey Joe Walcott gets docked for losing a fight when he's 16 years old!! Demspey gets docked for a loss when he had been a pro for 8 months.
It just goes on and on.

Every fighter gets docked for almost every loss. It takes an exceptional performance against an exceptional opponent not to get docked for a loss.

I don't have my notebook in front of me, but I can tell you with certainty that Lyle in fact did receive points for beating Bonavena and Bugner along with everyone else he beat.

Pinklon Thomas received more points for his victory over Tim Witherspoon than Morrison got for his victory over Tomashek. Most of Pinklon's points on the positive side of the ledger are offset by his many KO defeats, and the lack of video accompaniment for many of his wins doesn't help either.

As an example Samuel Peter and Pinklon Thomas are only separated by 1 point, but since the vast majority of Peter's bouts are available to be seen while the vast majority of Pinklon's bouts are not. It's a safe assumption that if that additional video were available the gap between them would be wider.
.
This same thing applies in the cases of Morrison, Sanders and Norton respectively. The vast majority of Norton's early career is not available on video. Whereas almost every fight is available for Sanders and Morrison both. Yet still they're not separated by all that much.

Thomas kayo defeats are when he was past it and shouldn't affect his legacy though.

[gilgamesh]

Excuses. I don't do excuses.

If it were left up to most fans all of their favorites are past their prime as soon as they lose, and all the fighters they dislike are still in their prime and therefore a total loser when they lose at 40.

My system doesn't change from fighter to fighter. A loss is a loss. If you were too old to win, you shouldn't have been fighting anymore.

A Good example of why I don't acknowledge this "He was past his prime" stuff.

When Ray Leonard lost to Terry Norris he was 34 years old. Mayweather was 36 years old when he beat a better figher than Norris in Canelo Alvarez. Leonard gets a pass for losing to Norris because he was "past his prime" but where's the extra praise for Mayweather who must've also been past his?

Every fighters prime is different. Every fighter peaks at different times. Every fighter is past it at different times as well. How they lived outside the ring. How much damage they took inside it. All these things contribute. There is no 1 set way to determine when a fighter was past his prime or when he wasn't. There's simply people who want to reach for an excuse when someone they were a fan of lost.

Being a fighter is about knowing when to engage and disengage. When to apply pressure and when to back off and be defensive.

In my opinion knowing when you've given all you had to give and stepping away is also a part of that. Some fighters do it better than others. Most fight on past their best days, some don't. The ones that don't you can count on one hand in any era.

[keithmoonhangover]

No. A loss is a loss is a loss is a loss.

A loss is never any less embarrassing for the man who suffered it. People make excuses for a loss always and age is another one. However it isn't always the same achievement for the man who wins it either.

Ruiz's win over Rahman is noteworthy. Traintafillo's win over Rahman isn't. There will not be a page in my book dedicated to Tryintofeelya. There is one dedicated to John Ruiz. That's the difference. Beating a name fighter when he mattered means you matter. Beating a name fighter when he's washed up means you beat an old washed up fighter.

That's why Ken Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great win and Trevor Berbick's is simply a win.

But you said you understood stages of a career 25 years ago. Aren't the Ruiz loss and a fight aged 56 at different stages of Rahman's career?

[Controversial]

Trying to rank fighters using an equation is flawed and pointless. There are so many variables involved so trying to nail them down will never work. Favourites lose fights, prime fighters lose fights, underdogs win fights etc so stats and opinions frequently are wrong. Also we can all come up with a way of measuring a fighters career and all have different things we value. It’s like trying to say who the best actor is based on what films they’ve been in, what IMDB ranking they got, it’s all subjective and ultimately its just one persons opinion.

[784118]

Lots of people now dismiss Tyson as an overated fighter, a bully, someone who fought in a weak era etc..etc...

But honestly, how many of you thought Mike Tyson was overated when he was 37-0 (33 ko's)?

If you thought he was overated then, what made you think that?

The key is separating Tyson's extraordinary ability from the questions about his durability, adaptability, and composure when things went wrong. He was untested more so than over rated.


- Tony Tucker: This was a significant test before the Douglas fight. Tucker was unbeaten, physically imposing, and had a good jab and enough athleticism to keep Tyson honest. Tyson won a unanimous decision over 12 rounds. Tucker reportedly injured his right hand early, which limited his offense, but he still deserves credit for going the distance. Tyson showed he could win a tactical fight, although Tucker wasn't able to put him under the sort of sustained pressure that would expose his weaknesses.


- Tim Witherspoon: Tyson never fought Witherspoon. That's an interesting omission because Tim was a strong, versatile heavyweight who could box, counterpunch, and handle himself physically. A prime Witherspoon would have presented a different sort of problem from the opponents Tyson usually overwhelmed. Don King would not allow the fight.

- Frank Bruno, 1989: Bruno hurt Tyson and had stretches in which he troubled him with his power and combinations. Tyson eventually stopped him in the fifth round. I wouldn't say the wheels came off here, but the fight offered a glimpse of how dangerous a disciplined, powerful opponent could be when he stood his ground and fought back.

- Buster Douglas, 1990: This was the decisive examination. Douglas used his jab, combinations, movement, and conditioning to keep Tyson from establishing his usual rhythm. When Tyson was hurt and dropped, Douglas had already demonstrated that he could beat him over the course of a fight. Tyson's inability to recover and adapt was as important as the knockdown itself.

[gilgamesh]

No. A loss is a loss is a loss is a loss.

A loss is never any less embarrassing for the man who suffered it. People make excuses for a loss always and age is another one. However it isn't always the same achievement for the man who wins it either.

Ruiz's win over Rahman is noteworthy. Traintafillo's win over Rahman isn't. There will not be a page in my book dedicated to Tryintofeelya. There is one dedicated to John Ruiz. That's the difference. Beating a name fighter when he mattered means you matter. Beating a name fighter when he's washed up means you beat an old washed up fighter.

That's why Ken Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great win and Trevor Berbick's is simply a win.

But you said you understood stages of a career 25 years ago. Aren't the Ruiz loss and a fight aged 56 at different stages of Rahman's career?

Yes

And don't most 56 year old men know better than to try to Box Professionally? Losing because you're 56 is like getting knocked out because your hands were down by your sides and your chin was up in the air. You lost because you're stupid. If you wanted to preserve your legacy (not that it did much damage to Rahman's anyway honestly), you would've stayed at home.

Do you honestly think I watched Rahman vs John Ruiz and Rahman vs Tryintofeelya and couldn't tell a difference in the skills of Hasim Rahman from one fight to the other?

[gilgamesh]

Trying to rank fighters using an equation is flawed and pointless. There are so many variables involved so trying to nail them down will never work. Favourites lose fights, prime fighters lose fights, underdogs win fights etc so stats and opinions frequently are wrong. Also we can all come up with a way of measuring a fighters career and all have different things we value. It’s like trying to say who the best actor is based on what films they’ve been in, what IMDB ranking they got, it’s all subjective and ultimately its just one persons opinion.

I try my best to pin down all of the variables. I'm sure I missed a few, but I didn't want to put emphasis on anything that wasn't a common shared experience or possible outcome for all fighters of all eras. You're right in that I ultimately devised the system so the things I considered important are what affects the outcome, but the things I thought were important for determining a fighters greatness were well thought out.

Even my own opinions about who would rank where has been turned on its head on occasion since I created this ranking system.

The primary problem with it is the lack of available footage for some fighters, and not with others, but I look at that like well...ultimately who's going to be remembered? The fighters you can see? Or the fighters you can only read about?

I do my best with what I have.

If you don't agree with my system. Once again I will reiterate. I DO NOT GIVE A SH*T. It's for me. If someone else enjoys it or gets something out of it. That's great and I'm glad.

It doesn't give me some magical ability to be able to tell you who would've won in a Mythical fight, but it does give me clear and concise information about Who they fought. How they looked doing it (except in fights I can't see), and what they accomplished in their careers.

One thing I don't do since making this system is make excuses for a fighter that loses. Something I can't say for just about anyone else on this forum.

[Cojimar 1946]

Excuses. I don't do excuses.

If it were left up to most fans all of their favorites are past their prime as soon as they lose, and all the fighters they dislike are still in their prime and therefore a total loser when they lose at 40.

My system doesn't change from fighter to fighter. A loss is a loss. If you were too old to win, you shouldn't have been fighting anymore.

A Good example of why I don't acknowledge this "He was past his prime" stuff.

When Ray Leonard lost to Terry Norris he was 34 years old. Mayweather was 36 years old when he beat a better figher than Norris in Canelo Alvarez. Leonard gets a pass for losing to Norris because he was "past his prime" but where's the extra praise for Mayweather who must've also been past his?

Every fighters prime is different. Every fighter peaks at different times. Every fighter is past it at different times as well. How they lived outside the ring. How much damage they took inside it. All these things contribute. There is no 1 set way to determine when a fighter was past his prime or when he wasn't. There's simply people who want to reach for an excuse when someone they were a fan of lost.

Being a fighter is about knowing when to engage and disengage. When to apply pressure and when to back off and be defensive.

In my opinion knowing when you've given all you had to give and stepping away is also a part of that. Some fighters do it better than others. Most fight on past their best days, some don't. The ones that don't you can count on one hand in any era.

If someone is suffering from brain damage that's a pretty obvious sign they are past it with really no room for debate.

This system gets even sillier given we have examples of guys like Jones who fought decades past his prime.

[gilgamesh]

Right. And he said repeatedly as a young man said that he wouldn't do that. So he knew better and he did it anyway. He sold a bit of his legacy off for a few extra paydays. That's what it is and that's the way it should be looked at.

It's not a reflection of the fighter he was in his prime, but it is the undeniable result of the fights he fought not in his prime.

People make choices. Good and Bad. And they live with those choices. Better or worse.

You think if Floyd Mayweather even as old as he is comes back and turns his record from 50-0 to 50-1 it wouldn't hurt his legacy a bit? I promise you it would.

You think the younger generation who only ever saw Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul think Mike is the sh*t the way us older fight fans do?

These things leave an impression on people and they count whether we want em too or not. Even if we wish they hadn't made those choices. They did, and it is what it is.

[gilgamesh]

Just watched the 4 part Tyson documentary on Netflix. Was pretty surprised that he did DMT on camera at the end of Part 4. That's probably a first I think

Kinda the same old story you already know if you'd followed his Career and the news about him, but a well made documentary and a decent watch for the young folk who don't know who Mike Tyson was.

[Ambling Alp II]

Trying to rank fighters using an equation is flawed and pointless. There are so many variables involved so trying to nail them down will never work. Favourites lose fights, prime fighters lose fights, underdogs win fights etc so stats and opinions frequently are wrong. Also we can all come up with a way of measuring a fighters career and all have different things we value. It’s like trying to say who the best actor is based on what films they’ve been in, what IMDB ranking they got, it’s all subjective and ultimately its just one persons opinion.

Agreed.
We just have to take a really hard look at a fighter's career.
Most people realize that fights when one guy is way past his prime or clearly has not reached his prime is totally worthless.

In recent times, early in a fighter's career, he may or may not have a management team that has connections. If he does, he will be carefully steered towards fights against vastly inferior opponents who have virtually no chance of beating him. So he will be 15-0 and we really have no idea how good he is. He might fight for a vacant title against an opponent that who has done pretty much the same thing.

Another guy doesn't have these connections. He is fighting whoever he can. It might be against serious contender with way more experience. He might be 12-3 or something and will probably never get a title shot.

Long ago, fighters rarely fought a bunch of tomato cans before getting title shots. On their way up, they would fight other prospects, seasoned veterans, guys in higher weight classes etc. They might fight 3 times in a month or take a fight on short notice. A guy might start his career at 16 or 17. So, it's not surprising that so many ATGs have losses in their early career.

In a fighter's primes, a contender would actually fight another contender. Gasp! Of course, one guy is going to get a loss.
Late in fighters careers, some guys just need the money. This happened more often way back when the $ was not as big, but of course still happens.

And course, if you don't take into consideration a fighter's prime, you are going to give too much credit to a guy in his prime who beats a fighter past his.

I do think most people who have followed boxing understand most of this. Obviously not everyone. But at least most of us.

[Cojimar 1946]

Right. And he said repeatedly as a young man said that he wouldn't do that. So he knew better and he did it anyway. He sold a bit of his legacy off for a few extra paydays. That's what it is and that's the way it should be looked at.

It's not a reflection of the fighter he was in his prime, but it is the undeniable result of the fights he fought not in his prime.

People make choices. Good and Bad. And they live with those choices. Better or worse.

You think if Floyd Mayweather even as old as he is comes back and turns his record from 50-0 to 50-1 it wouldn't hurt his legacy a bit? I promise you it would.

You think the younger generation who only ever saw Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul think Mike is the sh*t the way us older fight fans do?

These things leave an impression on people and they count whether we want em too or not. Even if we wish they hadn't made those choices. They did, and it is what it is.

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

[gilgamesh]

Trying to rank fighters using an equation is flawed and pointless. There are so many variables involved so trying to nail them down will never work. Favourites lose fights, prime fighters lose fights, underdogs win fights etc so stats and opinions frequently are wrong. Also we can all come up with a way of measuring a fighters career and all have different things we value. It’s like trying to say who the best actor is based on what films they’ve been in, what IMDB ranking they got, it’s all subjective and ultimately its just one persons opinion.

Agreed.
We just have to take a really hard look at a fighter's career.
Most people realize that fights when one guy is way past his prime or clearly has not reached his prime is totally worthless.

In recent times, early in a fighter's career, he may or may not have a management team that has connections. If he does, he will be carefully steered towards fights against vastly inferior opponents who have virtually no chance of beating him. So he will be 15-0 and we really have no idea how good he is. He might fight for a vacant title against an opponent that who has done pretty much the same thing.

Another guy doesn't have these connections. He is fighting whoever he can. It might be against serious contender with way more experience. He might be 12-3 or something and will probably never get a title shot.

Long ago, fighters rarely fought a bunch of tomato cans before getting title shots. On their way up, they would fight other prospects, seasoned veterans, guys in higher weight classes etc. They might fight 3 times in a month or take a fight on short notice. A guy might start his career at 16 or 17. So, it's not surprising that so many ATGs have losses in their early career.

In a fighter's primes, a contender would actually fight another contender. Gasp! Of course, one guy is going to get a loss.
Late in fighters careers, some guys just need the money. This happened more often way back when the $ was not as big, but of course still happens.

And course, if you don't take into consideration a fighter's prime, you are going to give too much credit to a guy in his prime who beats a fighter past his.

I do think most people who have followed boxing understand most of this. Obviously not everyone. But at least most of us.

Point 1: There's no such thing as a Worthless fight. There are some that mean a lot more than others. There are none that are worthless

Point 2: Many ATG's fought "a bunch of tomato cans" on the way up in fact. Not all of them, but many of them. In Marvin Hagler's first 20 fights he fought 5 men with a winning record. In Ken Norton's first 20 fights he fought 8 men with a winning record and got knocked out by 1 of them

Meanwhile in say Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s case He fought 13 men with a winning record in his first 20 fights, and fought for a Championship in his 18th fight....and won it.

Point 3: And of course if you don't take into consideration a fighter's prime. You're going to be somebody that doesn't pick up on very basic human anatomy, and the process of aging or the deterioration of skill. You'd have to be blind. Hell maybe you'd have to be a person that can't read or needs something explained to him 10,000 times and still doesn't get it. (Explaining this over and over makes me feel like the scene on Southpark when they're trying to explain to Kanye why he's a Gay Fish and he JUST DOESN'T GET IT)

Point 4: I'm beginning to wonder what you do or don't understand because you sure don't understand something that's explained to you clear as day I'll tell you that.

This is a quote about Prime as an example to Keith earlier in this thread.

Alp. Read this, and tell me what you think I mean when I say this. Tell me how you interpret this line.

"That's why Ken Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great win and Trevor Berbick's is simply a win"

Boy that sounds like I think Berbick's win over Ali is as good as Norton's don't it? That sounds like I think those 2 beating Ali is the exact same thing and I had no concept of when Ali's prime was or wasn't don't it?

Oh wait a minute. That's not what it sounds like. It almost sounds like I understand that thing you say I don't right?

But that can't be? Because if that were the case what are you gonna cry about tomorrow?

[gilgamesh]

Right. And he said repeatedly as a young man said that he wouldn't do that. So he knew better and he did it anyway. He sold a bit of his legacy off for a few extra paydays. That's what it is and that's the way it should be looked at.

It's not a reflection of the fighter he was in his prime, but it is the undeniable result of the fights he fought not in his prime.

People make choices. Good and Bad. And they live with those choices. Better or worse.

You think if Floyd Mayweather even as old as he is comes back and turns his record from 50-0 to 50-1 it wouldn't hurt his legacy a bit? I promise you it would.

You think the younger generation who only ever saw Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul think Mike is the sh*t the way us older fight fans do?

These things leave an impression on people and they count whether we want em too or not. Even if we wish they hadn't made those choices. They did, and it is what it is.

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

Of course they do, but 34 isn't old. Many fighters today are still getting great wins past the age of 34 having had more fights and taken more punishment than Leonard did. Everybody seems to want to ignore that.

Lennox Lewis meanwhile was 35 years old when he fought Hasim Rahman the first time. It was his 41st Professional fight. Meaning he was older, and had fought more fights than Leonard.

Does anybody give Lewis a pass for his loss to Rahman?

Do you see my point?

MY SYSTEM does not change from fighter to fighter. You all pick and choose what matters, when and why and for who.

You all give excuses when you want to, and don't give excuses when you don't want to. I hold all fighters to the same standards of greatness. Across the board. Across the eras.

I've honestly yet to hear anybody bring up one of the facets of the game that I don't consider.

[Ambling Alp II]

Right. And he said repeatedly as a young man said that he wouldn't do that. So he knew better and he did it anyway. He sold a bit of his legacy off for a few extra paydays. That's what it is and that's the way it should be looked at.

It's not a reflection of the fighter he was in his prime, but it is the undeniable result of the fights he fought not in his prime.

People make choices. Good and Bad. And they live with those choices. Better or worse.

You think if Floyd Mayweather even as old as he is comes back and turns his record from 50-0 to 50-1 it wouldn't hurt his legacy a bit? I promise you it would.

You think the younger generation who only ever saw Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul think Mike is the sh*t the way us older fight fans do?

These things leave an impression on people and they count whether we want em too or not. Even if we wish they hadn't made those choices. They did, and it is what it is.

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

Leonard's fights are good examples. Against Norris, he was 34, (not ancient, but clearly past his best) was rusty since he was not fighting regularly anymore, and was fighting a Terry Norris. And at least he went the distance.
It's not like he got knocked cold by someone like say Hasim Rahman.

Obviously, Leonard was way, way past it when he fought Camacho and almost everyone can tell right away that that fight was completely meaningless.
Other obvious examples have been mentioned. sometimes there are gray area like when a guy past his best but not shot. How much should that count is debatable.
But when we have fights when a guy is clearly past it, knowledgeable people know to disregard it. If Mayweather comes back in 5 years and loses anyone with a brain knows it doesn't mean anything.

[gilgamesh]

All fights mean something. Every single one. If they didn't mean anything they wouldn't have fought them.

Some mean more than others.

We simply philosophically disagree on this particular point. You are right from your side. I am right from mine. We are One too many mornings, and 1000 miles behind.


I don't give fighters a pass for losses in any circumstance except 2. Fights where they either fought their ass off, and barely lost to a great fighter in a great fight. Or fights where I and most others feel they didn't lose at all, and the judges got it wrong.

Other than that. No. If you fought past your prime, and lost. It's still a loss. Doesn't change the fighter you were in your prime, but it does unfortunately at least somewhat change the perception of how you're remembered.

Roy Jones Jr. undoubtedly would be rated higher on many people's All time list if not for his career from Tarver 2 onward. Would he not?

[Cojimar 1946]

Right. And he said repeatedly as a young man said that he wouldn't do that. So he knew better and he did it anyway. He sold a bit of his legacy off for a few extra paydays. That's what it is and that's the way it should be looked at.

It's not a reflection of the fighter he was in his prime, but it is the undeniable result of the fights he fought not in his prime.

People make choices. Good and Bad. And they live with those choices. Better or worse.

You think if Floyd Mayweather even as old as he is comes back and turns his record from 50-0 to 50-1 it wouldn't hurt his legacy a bit? I promise you it would.

You think the younger generation who only ever saw Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul think Mike is the sh*t the way us older fight fans do?

These things leave an impression on people and they count whether we want em too or not. Even if we wish they hadn't made those choices. They did, and it is what it is.

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

Of course they do, but 34 isn't old. Many fighters today are still getting great wins past the age of 34 having had more fights and taken more punishment than Leonard did. Everybody seems to want to ignore that.

Lennox Lewis meanwhile was 35 years old when he fought Hasim Rahman the first time. It was his 41st Professional fight. Meaning he was older, and had fought more fights than Leonard.

Does anybody give Lewis a pass for his loss to Rahman?

Do you see my point?

MY SYSTEM does not change from fighter to fighter. You all pick and choose what matters, when and why and for who.

You all give excuses when you want to, and don't give excuses when you don't want to. I hold all fighters to the same standards of greatness. Across the board. Across the eras.

I've honestly yet to hear anybody bring up one of the facets of the game that I don't consider.

Back then it was considered old though. You are talking about something that happened more than 35 years ago. Fighters today seem to generally age better probably due to better recovery methods and performance enhancing drugs.

And most boxing fans don't hold it against Leonard whether they like him or not.

[gilgamesh]

To be clear. I don't look at it as "I hold it against him" that he lost. I simply acknowledge that he fought and lost.

Both Terry Norris and Camacho are Hall of Famers. It's not as if it's the most embarrassing thing to lose to them anyway.

[gilgamesh]

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

Of course they do, but 34 isn't old. Many fighters today are still getting great wins past the age of 34 having had more fights and taken more punishment than Leonard did. Everybody seems to want to ignore that.

Lennox Lewis meanwhile was 35 years old when he fought Hasim Rahman the first time. It was his 41st Professional fight. Meaning he was older, and had fought more fights than Leonard.

Does anybody give Lewis a pass for his loss to Rahman?

Do you see my point?

MY SYSTEM does not change from fighter to fighter. You all pick and choose what matters, when and why and for who.

You all give excuses when you want to, and don't give excuses when you don't want to. I hold all fighters to the same standards of greatness. Across the board. Across the eras.

I've honestly yet to hear anybody bring up one of the facets of the game that I don't consider.

Back then it was considered old though. You are talking about something that happened more than 35 years ago. Fighters today seem to generally age better probably due to better recovery methods and performance enhancing drugs.

And most boxing fans don't hold it against Leonard whether they like him or not.

Leonard's loss to Norris and Lewis' loss to Rahman were 10 years apart. They're not different eras.

One guys loss is excused as he's past his prime. One isn't. At least by you guys. Not by me. Because MY CRITERIA doesn't change from fighter to fighter. Which is the point of the system. It doesn't allow bias. Mine or yours. The results are what they are.

[gilgamesh]

Right. And he said repeatedly as a young man said that he wouldn't do that. So he knew better and he did it anyway. He sold a bit of his legacy off for a few extra paydays. That's what it is and that's the way it should be looked at.

It's not a reflection of the fighter he was in his prime, but it is the undeniable result of the fights he fought not in his prime.

People make choices. Good and Bad. And they live with those choices. Better or worse.

You think if Floyd Mayweather even as old as he is comes back and turns his record from 50-0 to 50-1 it wouldn't hurt his legacy a bit? I promise you it would.

You think the younger generation who only ever saw Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul think Mike is the sh*t the way us older fight fans do?

These things leave an impression on people and they count whether we want em too or not. Even if we wish they hadn't made those choices. They did, and it is what it is.

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

Leonard's fights are good examples. Against Norris, he was 34, (not ancient, but clearly past his best) was rusty since he was not fighting regularly anymore, and was fighting a Terry Norris. And at least he went the distance.
It's not like he got knocked cold by someone like say Hasim Rahman.

Obviously, Leonard was way, way past it when he fought Camacho and almost everyone can tell right away that that fight was completely meaningless.
Other obvious examples have been mentioned. sometimes there are gray area like when a guy past his best but not shot. How much should that count is debatable.
But when we have fights when a guy is clearly past it, knowledgeable people know to disregard it. If Mayweather comes back in 5 years and loses anyone with a brain knows it doesn't mean anything.

Tell me something Alp. If Usyk were to say lose to Jai Opetaia next year. Even though Usyk is over the age of 40.

Would it count?

[Cojimar 1946]

Of course they do, but 34 isn't old. Many fighters today are still getting great wins past the age of 34 having had more fights and taken more punishment than Leonard did. Everybody seems to want to ignore that.

Lennox Lewis meanwhile was 35 years old when he fought Hasim Rahman the first time. It was his 41st Professional fight. Meaning he was older, and had fought more fights than Leonard.

Does anybody give Lewis a pass for his loss to Rahman?

Do you see my point?

MY SYSTEM does not change from fighter to fighter. You all pick and choose what matters, when and why and for who.

You all give excuses when you want to, and don't give excuses when you don't want to. I hold all fighters to the same standards of greatness. Across the board. Across the eras.

I've honestly yet to hear anybody bring up one of the facets of the game that I don't consider.

Back then it was considered old though. You are talking about something that happened more than 35 years ago. Fighters today seem to generally age better probably due to better recovery methods and performance enhancing drugs.

And most boxing fans don't hold it against Leonard whether they like him or not.

Leonard's loss to Norris and Lewis' loss to Rahman were 10 years apart. They're not different eras.

One guys loss is excused as he's past his prime. One isn't. At least by you guys. Not by me. Because MY CRITERIA doesn't change from fighter to fighter. Which is the point of the system. It doesn't allow bias. Mine or yours. The results are what they are.

They are different eras as far as performance enhancing drugs are concerned. By the early 2000s more guys were on PEDs.

And Lewis scored good wins following the Rahman loss while Leonard did not. So that's an obvious difference

[gilgamesh]

Because he didn't have a style that relied on speed. Leonard did. Styles that are reliant on speed don't tend to age well.

Lewis I'd imagine probably also did less partying outside the ring than Leonard considering Leonard would sometimes retire for long stretches of time while Lewis didn't.

Lewis was never accused of PED's yet here you are accusing him of PED usage based on nothing. Leonard however ADMITS he did a lot of Cocaine in the 80's. You don't think that has a lot to do with deterioration of skill?

[Ambling Alp II]

Nobody I know of thinks any less of Leonard for his past prime losses. People have collectively decided that they don't affect his legacy. Even people who dislike Leonard don't bring up his old age defeats.

So that seems like a pretty obvious exception.

Leonard's fights are good examples. Against Norris, he was 34, (not ancient, but clearly past his best) was rusty since he was not fighting regularly anymore, and was fighting a Terry Norris. And at least he went the distance.
It's not like he got knocked cold by someone like say Hasim Rahman.

Obviously, Leonard was way, way past it when he fought Camacho and almost everyone can tell right away that that fight was completely meaningless.
Other obvious examples have been mentioned. sometimes there are gray area like when a guy past his best but not shot. How much should that count is debatable.
But when we have fights when a guy is clearly past it, knowledgeable people know to disregard it. If Mayweather comes back in 5 years and loses anyone with a brain knows it doesn't mean anything.

Tell me something Alp. If Usyk were to say lose to Jai Opetaia next year. Even though Usyk is over the age of 40.

Would it count?

As far as rating him? Not to me. Given that he has taken very little punishment in his career, he should be able to fight longer than a typical guy who has fought many more fights and had been in a lot of tough ones. But yes, at certain point, age makes the fight irrelevant.

[gilgamesh]

I don't think any fights are irrelevant. Some are just more important than others. You could of course argue that the entire sport and therefore keeping up with any of it is irrelevant, but since that's not what we do here I keep up with the sport and the relevant performers within it.

However it is obvious that there is more to the way I rate fighters than mere statistics. If it weren't then Evander Holyfield wouldn't be above Wladimir Klitschko. Wladimir has more wins, More KO wins, More Championship wins, but yet Evander Holyfield rates higher. How? Why?

It's because there's more to the way I rate fighters than statistics. Which should be obvious with that along with many other cases I can point to at this point in my ongoing research.

As to the subject of If Usyk beats Opetaia. I'd say it's a tremendous win. If Opetaia beats Usyk it's a tremendous win, and maybe Opetaia would be lucky to have caught Usyk at the right time, but nevertheless it's a tremendous win.

Even at over 40 if you beat an unbeaten Champion who's never lost before it's not insignificant to the winning fighter or the losing fighter.

I also don't consider it to be insignificant if 2 older fighters of the same generation fight, and one of them gets a win over the other. For instance Greg Page vs Tim Witherspoon 2. That's a damn good win for Page, and shouldn't be taken away just because both men were past their prime. It's also a significantly better fight than the 1st one they fought when they were in their prime. There really aren't many universal rules that apply across Boxing. So much of it has to be taken on a case by case basis, but there are a few things that every era has in common, and that's the thing I tried to build my system around. The commonality.

Things that are thought of as being "Modern era" stuff has been around for many many years. There was more than 1 World Champion per weight class frequently from the 1960's or so onward.

Even in the 1950's and earlier there would occasionally be times when there was an NBA Champion and a World Champion simultaneously.