When fighters continue to fight past their primes, it seems that all of their wins enhance their legacy but all of their losses are ignored because they are past prime.
-If you look at Bernard Hopkins, he was given a ton of credit for being the oldest world champion and continuing to win fights while up there in age. These wins help his legacy but the minute he gets dominated by Kovalev, he's past prime and that loss does not count.
-If Roy Jones (hypothetically) went on to win a cruiserweight title, it would enhance his legacy. But if he gets credit for the wins, shouldn't he be penalized for his losses.
-Julio Cesar Chavez was a world title holder and on a winning streak heading into the fight with Oscar De La Hoya. The wins help his legacy but he is not penalized for the loss to Oscar nor is Oscar given much credit for his wins.
There are a ton of other examples of giving past prime fighters credit for wins but a pass for losses. How do you feel about this?
-If you look at Bernard Hopkins, he was given a ton of credit for being the oldest world champion and continuing to win fights while up there in age. These wins help his legacy but the minute he gets dominated by Kovalev, he's past prime and that loss does not count.
-If Roy Jones (hypothetically) went on to win a cruiserweight title, it would enhance his legacy. But if he gets credit for the wins, shouldn't he be penalized for his losses.
-Julio Cesar Chavez was a world title holder and on a winning streak heading into the fight with Oscar De La Hoya. The wins help his legacy but he is not penalized for the loss to Oscar nor is Oscar given much credit for his wins.
There are a ton of other examples of giving past prime fighters credit for wins but a pass for losses. How do you feel about this?
Comment