CAN SOMEONE's LEGACY BE TAINTED BY LATE-CAREER LOSSES?

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 10 Oct 2007, 06:03

While careers can be looked at in perspective in retirement, I feel legacies can be tainted.

Nigel Benn for instance showed unbelievable powers of resistance, dog and heart against McClelland, but esp as that fight is never replayed you are left with the memory of two quits against Collins.

These are two victories which the Irishman crows about along with his wins against Eubank.

They are still his best results despite them being tainted.

One of the reasons Marciano has such a fine legacy was that he retired unbeaten

greg · Post by **greg** » 10 Oct 2007, 06:17

I'm possibly one of those very few who believe that the WHOLE career should be taken into account and not just the prime time. With probably ONE exception: I am prepared to discard a couple of LAST fights, when the boxer loses the sense of reality and keeps fighting--- while EVERYONE except him knows he SHOULDN'T. Lots of sportsmen - and women retire at the peak of their careers NOT willing to "taint" their legacy. Boxing is just like any other sport. Speaking of Holyfield I'm sure he is fully aware of what he's doing and he's doing it pretty good---he keeps winning and losing and it's all part of his legacy IMO.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Oct 2007, 08:44

All fights of every fighter should be taken into consideration. BUT few are seriously going to put much weight on Ali's loss to Holmes, or Holmes defeat by Tyson, etc...

The manner of defeat also means something. Roy Jones gets criticised more than maybe some think he should because he got sparked out by Tarver and then basically folded against Johnson. These defeats don't mean he wasn't great but they do give us some clues on how best to have beaten him.

I don't care too much for win/loss ratios. What matters is who you beat, who you fought, how you did it and how long did the good performances last.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 Oct 2007, 10:19

I pretty much agree with what Ezzard said. I would just like to add a few points:

-One crucial reason why it's important to not to give much credit to a fighter for beating a "shot" fighter is that it's not fair to someone else who beat that fighter in his prime. (Or for that matter, lost to the fighter in his prime).
ie- Larry Donald shouldn't get as much credit for beating a washed up Holyfield as Riddick Bowe should get for beating a prime Evander Holyfield.

-The "past his prime" statement is used too often. Sometimes a fighter really isn't past his prime, he just lost.

-Sometimes there are gray areas. Sometimes it's hard to say if a fighter was past his prime.

- Sometimes a fighter is slightly past his prime, but not "shot". Those fights shouldn't be weighed as heavily as a fight when the fighter was in his prime, but more heavily than if he was "shot".

And as Ezzard touched on, how long of a prime a fighter had should be a factor when rating his career. The longer, the better.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 10 Oct 2007, 10:32

Verballistic, finally we agree on something!

I always hear the talk of "tainting legacies", but in the mists of time, these results are never remembered.

Nobody EVER denigrates Ali's achievements because he lost to Berbick. Leon Spinks, Buster Douglas and Iran Barkley are remembered for their wins against all-time greats, not for the shitty ways their careers ended.

markl · Post by **markl** » 10 Oct 2007, 12:32

Perseus · Post by **Perseus** » 10 Oct 2007, 19:13

I also believe ALL fights should be considered.
Some of the late losses don't carry as much weight because that was the expected outcome going into the ring but the way I see it if a fighter is entering the ring with a chance to enhance his legacy then he can damage it too.
Aging fighters pulling an upset adds a lot to their legacy, losing a tough decision to a younger fighter can add their legacy even in defeat.
If they quit on their stool that should hurt their legacy too.

IMO Roy Jones non-effort in the Tarver rubber match damaged his way legacy more than getting stretched in the second fight. Had he won that fight it would have been huge for his legacy though.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 10 Oct 2007, 19:44

I agree with ezzard and alp.

The only thing I would add is that, basically, fans can be biased in terms of the fighters they acknowledge as being past their best and not past their best. Look at the constant Ali threads about Ali-Young, while few people pick on Louis-Charles. Ali was younger than Louis (and conditioning was also part of it), but age is almost irrelevant... which is another thing that makes it confusing, some fighters are finished in their 20's, some fighters are going strong into their 40's.

I think its important to use discretion when judging a fighter's career. No fighter is going to beat age, so why judge a fighter based on that? Some fighters had to keep fighting because they needed money. You're going to demote Ezzard Charles and Ray Robinson and Joe Louis as fighters because they kept fighting for finances and had no other choice? That's not really fair.

I would give credit to a fighter for longevity, like Moore or Foreman of Hopkins, but it doesn't seem fair to penalize a fighter for something that happens to all fighters at some point.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Oct 2007, 04:03

Decagon wrote:A little bit yes, a lot bit no. A 40-year-old Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't have lost to Hector Camacho, but Sugar Ray Leonard did. Going to age 46 and never being knocked out by anything other than the heat? There's a big difference between the two Sugar Rays. A BIG difference, and not just because of what they were like when they were 40. Age simply magnifies a man's strengths and weaknesses. It took strength for Ali to go all those rounds with Larry Holmes and not get sent to the canvas. Few other top heavyweights could've taken that kind of beating.

Fair points.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Oct 2007, 09:25

I do think a few points must be brought up here.
Not only was Sugar Ray Leonard 40 when he fought Camacho, he hadn't fought in 6 years. That probably had more to do with his poor performance than his advanced age.

Age is a crucial factor regarding a fighter being past his prime, but there are other important factors to consider as well.
The wear and tear on a fighter. How many fights and especially the amount of punishment a fighter has taken is crucial.

The 25 year Ali was much better than the 25 year old Holyfield or 25 year old Lewis. The 32 year old Ali was better than the 32 year old Holyfield or 32 year old Lewis. However, the 36 year old Ali wasn't as good as the 36 year old Holyfield or the 36 year old Lewis.

When Ali fought Spinks at the age of 36, he already had 57 fights. In a 18 month period of time, (March of 1975-September 1976) he defended the title 8 times. In some of these fights he took a lot of punishment, which accelerated his decline.
Holyfield had also taken some punishment in some of his fights but was only fighting once or twice a year.
Lewis took less punishment than Holyfield and didn't seem to decline much until the Klitschko fight, and that was probably more to do with his lack of training than anything. It's likely that if Lewis would have chosen to fight a couple of times a year, he could have been the champion for at least 3 more years.

Not having a lot of tough fights can reduce the pace of a fighters decline as he gets older. If a fighter fights enough so that he doesn't get rusty but not too much, he can fight at a more advanced age without a huge dropoff. Of course Father time will catch up to everyone at some point.

Of course all this makes what Robinson did all the more remarkable.
However, if he would have only fought a couple of times a year later in his career he probably would have been even better when he was in his 40's.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 11 Oct 2007, 09:27

I simply ignore most late career losses when it's obvious the fighter is much less than what he was in his prime. Marvin Hagler V Leonard immediately came to mind

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Oct 2007, 09:44

Ambling Alp wrote:I do think a few points must be brought up here.
Not only was Sugar Ray Leonard 40 when he fought Camacho, he hadn't fought in 6 years. That probably had more to do with his poor performance than his advanced age.

Age is a crucial factor regarding a fighter being past his prime, but there are other important factors to consider as well.
The wear and tear on a fighter. How many fights and especially the amount of punishment a fighter has taken is crucial.

The 25 year Ali was much better than the 25 year old Holyfield or 25 year old Lewis. The 32 year old Ali was better than the 32 year old Holyfield or 32 year old Lewis. However, the 36 year old Ali wasn't as good as the 36 year old Holyfield or the 36 year old Lewis.

When Ali fought Spinks at the age of 36, he already had 57 fights. In a 18 month period of time, (March of 1975-September 1976) he defended the title 8 times. In some of these fights he took a lot of punishment, which accelerated his decline.
Holyfield had also taken some punishment in some of his fights but was only fighting once or twice a year.
Lewis took less punishment than Holyfield and didn't seem to decline much until the Klitschko fight, and that was probably more to do with his lack of training than anything. It's likely that if Lewis would have chosen to fight a couple of times a year, he could have been the champion for at least 3 more years.

Not having a lot of tough fights can reduce the pace of a fighters decline as he gets older. If a fighter fights enough so that he doesn't get rusty but not too much, he can fight at a more advanced age without a huge dropoff. Of course Father time will catch up to everyone at some point.

Of course all this makes what Robinson did all the more remarkable.
However, if he would have only fought a couple of times a year later in his career he probably would have been even better when he was in his 40's.

I'd also add that a fighter's style dictates his longevity. It's much harder for an all action fighter like Joe Frazier/Jake La Motta/Basilio/Fenech etc to have a long career than say a Pep/Ali/Whittaker or even a Foreman who probably still has a KO punch on him today.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Oct 2007, 12:32

bollox wrote:I simply ignore most late career losses when it's obvious the fighter is much less than what he was in his prime. Marvin Hagler V Leonard immediately came to mind

Hagler-Leonard would be an example when the "past his prime" line is just an excuse.

Perseus · Post by **Perseus** » 11 Oct 2007, 16:25

^^^^amen.

Hagler was still the undisputed champ and reigning p4p when SRL beat him.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 11 Oct 2007, 16:56

Ambling Alp wrote:
bollox wrote:I simply ignore most late career losses when it's obvious the fighter is much less than what he was in his prime. Marvin Hagler V Leonard immediately came to mind
Hagler-Leonard would be an example when the "past his prime" line is just an excuse.

Really? You reckon Hagler was in his prime for this fight? Age 34 and 60+ fights and in what turned out to be the last fight of his career?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Oct 2007, 22:49

I sort of look at it like there's four stages in a fighters career. This might not apply to all fighters, and it is probably a little simplistic, but I think it can apply to most fighters and can be a fairly useful way of looking at it. To me, generally, there is the fighter's pre-prime stage in their career where the fighter is developing. There's the prime years where the fighter is at his best. There's the post-prime stage where a fighter is not in his prime but is not shot. And there's the shot stage where a fighter is finished. Obviously some fighters are different, and there might be stages inbetween those stages I named, but I think this can apply to most fighters.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Oct 2007, 23:50

I think Louis' "pre-prime" stage was better than that of most fighters, he was an elite fighter only a year in. But, no, I think most would say he was better in his championship days, before he went into the army. I've said it repeatedly in the past, I think Duran was clearly a much more well rounded fighter in the DeJesus rubber match than he was when he fought Buchanan. That's not to say that he wasn't already good when he fought Buchanan, but he was still developing.

But like I said, its only a generalization. I think there are probably exceptions.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 12 Oct 2007, 00:53

Yeah, I think he would be an exception. He might not have had a "pre-prime."

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 12 Oct 2007, 08:02

Roy Jones' legacy has been tainted by the losses to Tarver and Johnson. Probably too much so

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 12 Oct 2007, 17:11

Both the Tarver and Johnson stoppages cast doubts about Jones' punch resistance. It wasnt as if an accumulation of punishment throughout a long career caught up with him, more that when his reflexes slowed down he couldnt handle the heat. Before that he seemed nigh on unbeatable, casts a bit of a cloud over his legacy. He had all the skills, but if he faced the other real top elite at MW or LHW, would his punch resistance have been up to the job?