BoxRec

How do the following detract from your rating?

1. Losses early in their career.
2. Losses that were avenged.
3. Losses later in their career.
4. Losses with an excuse.

Examples I was thinking of are.

1. Jack Dempsey's early losses.
2. Lennox Lewis' avenged defeats
3, Tyson's losses from Holyfield and beyond.
4. Pretty much every loss in Duran's career. Seriously, injuries, cuts etc. Vitali's injury against Byrd comes to mind.

Losses in your prime against one of your peers is always the stuff that effects your legacy in the most dramatic way.

Early career losses can be overlooked in many cases as many times the guy still hasn't reached his full potential, and has flaws in his game he's still improving upon.

A loss that is avenged is certainly a boost to your credibility because now people don't have to assume that you probably got better. They can know it for a fact.

Later career losses probably hurt guys worse than Early career on the way up losses do because by this point you've established your name in the sport more therefore everyone is going to SEE YOU lose, whereas they might not have been paying attention before.

As for excuses. I simply disregard them. A loss is a loss.

Even if a guy lost in some freakish way like he slipped and broke his ankle. Now does that mean that the guy is definitely better than him in a case like that? Of course not. But does it mean he still lost? Yep.

jwfg wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 12:46 How do the following detract from your rating?

1. Losses early in their career.
2. Losses that were avenged.
3. Losses later in their career.
4. Losses with an excuse.

Examples I was thinking of are.

1. Jack Dempsey's early losses.
2. Lennox Lewis' avenged defeats
3, Tyson's losses from Holyfield and beyond.
4. Pretty much every loss in Duran's career. Seriously, injuries, cuts etc. Vitali's injury against Byrd comes to mind.

1. Early in a fighter's career don't mean much. The earlier, the less it means.
2. Loss that are avenged count. They still happened. A fighter should get credit for winning the rematch.
3. Losses later in a fighter's career? Assuming you are talking about when a fighter's is clearly past his prime, not much at all.
4. Losses with an excuse? Assuming it's not from a bad officiating decision or something like that, counts. Don't want to hear about having to lose weight or personal problems.
Amazing that people can come up with the lame excuses for their guy, but always give their guy full credit.

1. As for your specific examples:
Don't count Dempsey's against him very much. He was taking fights at the last minute on his way up.
2. Lewis losses to McCall and Rahman did happen. Going 1-1 against an opponent that you should beat is not the same as going 0-0. It's worse. There is a gray area with the McCall fight. I don't think the fight should have been stopped, but don't know if he would have won anyway.
3. Tyson's losses to Holyfield have to count. He was closer to his best than Holyfield was to his, and he still lost. After that, I Tyson's losses don't mean much.
4. Duran's losses to DeJesus, Leonard, and Benitez count. Excuses for those losses are just crybaby excuses.
The Hearns fight to a lesser extent. He was a little past it but should not have lost that badly. Kirkland Lang, he was a little past it, but should have been able to beat a guy like that. After that, don't really count them.

Klitschko's "injury" against Byrd? That counts. He should have been able to continue for a few more rounds. He lost because he simply wasn't tough enough. He also deserves criticism for performing so badly in such a crappy fight.

- Other factors when looking at losses: How competitive was the fight? Losing a tough competitive fight isn't as bad as getting dominated.
And of course, the quality of the opponent. The weaker the opponent, the more it should be counted against someone. A close loss to a great opponent should only be counted against a guy if he is being compared to that same guy, or another great fighter.
i.e. Ken Norton should get credit for the loss against Holmes, not have it used against him.

It's a complicated concept.

A fighter from a major boxing country who has a big amateur career and is carefully managed... If this guy loses then it's a much bigger deal than an old-timer losing a dozen fights.

It also must be better to fight a top ranked opponent and lose than not fight them at all.

A guy who had a significant part of his career at a lower weight who then loses to someone naturally bigger... I don't put too much into.

A guy who loses away from home also mitigates it to some extent.

Same for losing to the house fighter... Mayweather promoted his own fights! Picked the ring, the gloves, the weight stipulations, the testing, the ref. How many advantages does a guy need?

If the defeat is repeated in terms of "how" then that can signify a shortcoming. A glass jaw. Stamina issues. Stylistic problems...

Other than that I don't really consider defeats that much when considering how great someone is.

A prime loss due to an extremely busy schedule is something I would consider valid 60 or more years ago.

jwfg wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 12:46
Examples I was thinking of are.

1. Jack Dempsey's early losses.
2. Lennox Lewis' avenged defeats
3, Tyson's losses from Holyfield and beyond.
4. Pretty much every loss in Duran's career. Seriously, injuries, cuts etc. Vitali's injury against Byrd comes to mind.

1. Means nothing
2. A positive, you are able to come back and win. Shows mental fortitude and an ability to adapt.
3. The Holyfield losses certainly should be positives for Evander.
4. Vitali's loss means very little. Duran's... Hard to dump them all into the same bracket.

Seamus wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 07:42 A prime loss due to an extremely busy schedule is something I would consider valid 60 or more years ago.

I pretty much agree, assuming it wasn't to someone terrible. If a guy has 15 fights in a year or something and loses a fight a week after he had just had one, is pretty understandable. Klitschko's losses to Byrd and Lewis at his worst and Tyson's losses to Douglas and Holyfield, don't fit that scenario and should count against them.

It's all about into one person's eye and perspective. Especially, some people are hard against other fighters that they don't really like.

Early losses when a fighter is just learning his craft is not much of a weight. The great Eusebio Pedroza lost to Alfonso Zamora by a nasty KO in 2 rounds. But Pedroza was a green boxer and very frailed for the Bantamweight class. He only had 20 fights by then. Now, Pedroza gains weight and gets stronger at featherweight and is light years better than when he fought Zamora. The great Henry Armstrong also had early losses. So the greats like Kid Gavilan, Carmen Basilio, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Carlos Ortiz, and Carlos Monzon. Those early losses by those great boxers don't mean much.

The biggie and it holds weight is when a fighter loses in his prime. Some get rematches. What about the ones that didn't get a rematch like for example, George Foreman against Muhammad Ali and Ken Buchanan against Roberto Duran? How about Wilfredo Gomez, Azumah Nelson and Antonio Cervantes? They didn't get their rematches. Well, Cervantes got his with Nicolino Locche but not with Wilfred Benitez.

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.

Some people get hard on the great Roberto Duran and get upset that he had excuses in his losses. In my own personal view, the ONLY MAN that really beat him at his very best was Esteban De Jesus. De Jesus is an all-time great lightweight, like it or not. A very good and excellent boxer. He had quality. He wasn't Rahman nor McCall. De Jesus was very good. Now, what if De Jesus never gave Duran a rematch? Would we now say that De Jesus beats Duran every time?

In the other way around, Duran beats Sugar Ray Leonard. What if Duran would have retired after that fight? What if he would have died in a plane crash? Would we say now that Leonard would have never beaten him? At least WE KNOW that Leonard NEVER BEAT DURAN at Duran's best. Duran did beat Leonard at Leonard's best.

It wasn't surprising that Manos de Piedra lost much more fights after No Mas. He wasn't fighting at his best weight. He was already in his 30s, an age that you consider retirement. He already had 13 years of boxing and over 70 fights before losing to Leonard. He already had a decade of boxing. He already had a hall of Fame career before Leonard. But, some people believe that his career started with Leonard. Duran's career started 13 years prior to that. Not many people put that into consideration.

Duran lost to Wilfred Benitez. So what? Was Duran prime then? No. Duran lost to Marvelous. Was Duran prime then? No. Tommy Hearns decapitated him. Was Duran prime then? No. It wasn't like if the fights were at least at welterweight. But, some people want to put that into account like if it's valid. Like it should matter. It didn't matter. It didn't happen in Duran's prime. Benitez, Hearns and Marvelous did what they had to do to be greats by beating him. But, the question will always be? Was Duran in his prime? Was he in his best weight?

Some people don't give the benefit of the doubt. Ali lost to Ken Norton 3 times in my view. Was Ali prime? No. Was Marvelous prime when he lost to Leonard? No. Marvelous was fading big time!

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.

As for Vitaly Klitschko and Mike Tyson. Tyson had the benefit of the doubt. Klitschko never had that. Tyson was looked as invincible in his prime. Klitschko never had the same aura. None of the Klitschko brothers did had that aura of invincibility. Tyson was the last fighter to have the aura of invincibility. The last fighter of the last 37 years or so. His fans also got lots of excuses for him when he lost each fight. Robin Givens was in his mind. Cus D'Amato died He fired Kevin Rooney. He went to jail, etc, etc, etc. He got EXCUSES. But, his excuses went beyond logic. Other fighters never had the excuses that Tyson had. Not even Duran. He, like Duran and Ali, got also the benefit of the doubt.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 23:03

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.

Not sure this is true.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 01:44

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 23:03

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.

I don't remember SRL having excuses against Norris. He said, as soon as he looked across the ring at Terry, he knew he was beat.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 01:44

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 23:03

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?

jwfg wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 06:49

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 01:44

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Aug 2023, 23:03

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.

I don't remember SRL having excuses against Norris. He said, as soon as he looked across the ring at Terry, he knew he was beat.

The EXCUSE is that Sugar Ray was not prime. He was 34 against Terrible Terry. Duran was 33 against Hearns. Leonard got an excuse. But, Duran? What is his excuse by many people?

It didn't count for Sugar Ray but it counted for Duran?

That's totally biased by many.

Ezzard wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 03:53 Not sure this is true.

Have you ever read his book?

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 10:16

jwfg wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 06:49

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 01:44

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

I don't remember SRL having excuses against Norris. He said, as soon as he looked across the ring at Terry, he knew he was beat.

The EXCUSE is that Sugar Ray was not prime. He was 34 against Terrible Terry. Duran was 33 against Hearns. Leonard got an excuse. But, Duran? What is his excuse by many people?

It didn't count for Sugar Ray but it counted for Duran?

That's totally biased by many.

A loss is a loss, and no all of Duran's losses didn't come when he was past his prime. When he was losing to William Joppy, and the like, yeah he's past his prime, sure.

A lot of his losses in the 80's came as a result of him living it up a little too much, and not living the dedicated Athlete's life.

I'm sure Leonard wouldn't have been so drained by the age of 34 if not for all of his wild cocaine years as well.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 11:40

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 10:16

jwfg wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 06:49

I don't remember SRL having excuses against Norris. He said, as soon as he looked across the ring at Terry, he knew he was beat.

The EXCUSE is that Sugar Ray was not prime. He was 34 against Terrible Terry. Duran was 33 against Hearns. Leonard got an excuse. But, Duran? What is his excuse by many people?

It didn't count for Sugar Ray but it counted for Duran?

That's totally biased by many.

A loss is a loss, and no all of Duran's losses didn't come when he was past his prime. When he was losing to William Joppy, and the like, yeah he's past his prime, sure.

A lot of his losses in the 80's came as a result of him living it up a little too much, and not living the dedicated Athlete's life.

I'm sure Leonard wouldn't have been so drained by the age of 34 if not for all of his wild cocaine years as well.

Duran was past his prime and past his best weight classes by 1981. Right after the No Mas.

Past your Prime, and Shot are 2 different things.

He did as well as he could've possibly done against Hagler. Hearns would've always beaten him. Maybe not that easy, but always.

And he didn't dramatically lose his ability between the 1st and 2nd Leonard fight.

If he was still capable of beating Iran Barkley in 1989, he was capable of beating Robbie Sims in 1986. He just didn't.

A lot of that is owed to the fact that he lived it up a little too much in between fights in many cases, and wasn't as prepared as he could've been. However that is not the same as you simply being incapable of beating a guy.

I'm not sh*tting on him either by the way. Hell if I were Duran, and I grew up the way he did. I'm sure I'd be living it up as soon as I got some money too. For that matter I didn't even grow up the way he did, and I would

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.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 12:27 Past your Prime, and Shot are 2 different things.

He did as well as he could've possibly done against Hagler. Hearns would've always beaten him. Maybe not that easy, but always.

And he didn't dramatically lose his ability between the 1st and 2nd Leonard fight.

If he was still capable of beating Iran Barkley in 1989, he was capable of beating Robbie Sims in 1986. He just didn't.

A lot of that is owed to the fact that he lived it up a little too much in between fights in many cases, and wasn't as prepared as he could've been. However that is not the same as you simply being incapable of beating a guy.

I'm not sh*tting on him either by the way. Hell if I were Duran, and I grew up the way he did. I'm sure I'd be living it up as soon as I got some money too. For that matter I didn't even grow up the way he did, and I would

I see your view. A prime Duran was from 1972-80. That's 8 years. He couldn't be prime forever. Everybody is not prime forever. Even if he stayed at lightweight, someone would have beaten him after 1980. The total of fights, wear and tear, slugfests take a toll even to the very best. Worse if he goes up into a weight class above his frame range.

When Duran came back from No Mas in 1981, he was slow, fat, and not sharp. Some people say that he lost the fire. But, nobody understood, only a few people that it wasn't his best weight class by any means. His most underrated asset, which was speed, didn't had it at 154lbs and above. So, of course he's gonna lose fights. Especially in his thirties, an age that you have to consider retirement.

Duran had not had a knockout win since he fought Wellington Wheatley for a period of two years and 7 straight fights.

Against Marvelous, even if he was prime, he would not have beaten him. Maybe when Marvelous was fading and Duran was in his prime, probably would have beaten him. Not at Marvelous' hey day.

I respect your view that Thomas Hearns always beats him all the time, but I don't agree with it. Duran was one of the smartest boxers of the last 60 years. Hearns may had the reach, the speed and height advantages, but Duran at welterweight and below is the winner.

And Why? The Hitman didn't had the legs to carry him in a fast paced and grueling 15-round fight. His legs AT WELTERWEIGHT, and below would have failed him. It failed him against Sugar Ray Leonard. So, it would have also failed him with one of the greatest pressure fighters. The best way to beat The Hitman was to apply constant pressure. Aaron Pryor did it. Leonard did it. Marvelous did it. And Iran Barkley did it. Now, Duran can't? Yes, he could have! It depends on what weight class we putting them together.

Prime or not, Pryor, Leonard nor Duran beat a prime Hearns at 154lbs. Pryor doesn't beat a prime Hearns at welterweight. But, I know he did at lightweight when both were amateurs. Leonard beats Hearns at welterweight. So does Duran. But at 154lbs and above? It's a different story. Hearns should beat all three.

Now, you might or not agree with me on this one: Hearns never beats Marvelous at 160.


Now, when he beat Iran Barkley, to me, it was a better achievement than when Leonard beat Marvelous. A washed up 37 years old legendary champion beats a bigger, taller, stronger, younger and in his prime in a slugfest for the ages.

Duran at those weight classes could only beat guys that came to him. If Barkley moves and box, which he did at times, he beats Manos de Piedra. If they would have fought a rematch then, Barkley wins. Duran at 154lbs and above could not deal with slick and movable targets. That's due to age, fights, weight, fighting beyond his prime, and lack of speed.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 22:30 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.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 00:40

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 22:30 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.

Benitez beat a Duran that still had 2 more World Championships in him. That's prime as far as I'm concerned, and yes of course Leonard beat Duran at his best too. He fought with a bad strategy the 1st time around, adjusted it the 2nd time around, and won decisively. Duran not training isn't an excuse.

Benitez may well have been a bad style matchup for Duran, but I think that would've been the case at any point in their respective careers.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 01:20

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 00:40

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 22:30 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.

Benitez beat a Duran that still had 2 more World Championships in him. That's prime as far as I'm concerned, and yes of course Leonard beat Duran at his best too. He fought with a bad strategy the 1st time around, adjusted it the 2nd time around, and won decisively. Duran not training isn't an excuse.

Benitez may well have been a bad style matchup for Duran, but I think that would've been the case at any point in their respective careers.

It wasn't prime nor his best weight either. Like I said before, Duran had not had a stoppage win in 7 fights and two years. You cannot have a prime forever.

De Jesus as far as I am concerned was the one that really beat him. At his very best.

Leonard never beat Duran at Duran's very best. Duran did that to Leonard. Both went 15 rounds of non stop punching. That means that they were at their very great physical shape. Leonard caught Duran in an OFF night.

Benitez caught a Duran at a weight class that didn't fit Duran. Plus, he was coming off from rusty wins and No Mas shenanigans. Duran had not looked good even when he beat Nino Gonzalez and Luigi Minchillo. Duran's prime was over.

If you don't train, you are not at your very best. Duran did trained for De Jesus. De Jesus was better that night.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 02:13 Not training isn't an excuse. If you didn't train, and the other dude did. The other dude is better than you. Period.

Then, Leon Spinks was better than Muhammad Ali.

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.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 02:15

gilgamesh wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 02:13 Not training isn't an excuse. If you didn't train, and the other dude did. The other dude is better than you. Period.

Then, Leon Spinks was better than Muhammad Ali.

For 1 night in 1978 he was, yes.