How much credit does a fighter deserve for beating an old legend?

Some old guys can still fight, some can't. It ain't always a credible win.

Examples of fighters beating Legends that deserve little to no credit. Holmes over Ali Juan Diaz over Aceleino Freitas Alfonso Gomez over Arturo Gatti Delahoya over Chavez Examples of fights that deserve every bit of credit Pacquiao over Barrera 2/Morales Holyfield over Foreman/Tyson Basilio over Robinson I disagree with the following in bold and somewhat with the underlined. I give Holmes credit for making Ali's corner stop it. He pretty much destroyed him. I don't know why you don't count Diaz's win over Freitas, especially when Freitas last win was Raheem...who beat Morales. So by this logic, Pacquiao deserves no credit for beating Morales. Freitas might have been inactive, but Diaz still handed him a beating and it was impressive. I think De La Hoya's win over Chavez was impressive because he really cut Chavez up with his jab. Chavez was coming off wins over Medrick Taylor, Randall, and Kamau. He also went on to beat Joey Gamache right after he lost to De La Hoya. Drawed with Miguel Angel Gonzalez and then destroyed by De La Hoya the second time. Pacquiao deserves little credit for the second barrera win since Barrera had just lost to Marquez pretty damn clearly and it was obvious Barrera only showed up for a payday. That fight sucked.

oops wrong thread. lol

Examples of fighters beating Legends that deserve little to no credit. Holmes over Ali Juan Diaz over Aceleino Freitas Alfonso Gomez over Arturo Gatti Delahoya over Chavez Examples of fights that deserve every bit of credit Pacquiao over Barrera/Morales Holyfield over Foreman/Tyson Basilio over Robinson

How much credit do you give a fighter for beating an old or past prime legend? How do you break it down? I'm really not sure myself of this myself. I've seen some people say "a win is a win" and others say that because the legend would've won had he been the same fight he was X number of years ago. I mean, on the one hand you have a legend in the sport on your record as a win, which on paper looks great. (And history is written by the books.) But on the other hand, they're past their prime, and it makes you wonder if they even would've stood a chance against them in their prime. Does it count more if the person the legend loses to has a solid record and perhaps is undefeated, rather than some guy with a record of like 27-8? Some examples......... Berbick beating Ali Wiley beating Chavez Bojorquez beating Whitaker Grant beating Hearns Ayon beating Robinson Woodland beating Pep Some more recent examples.......... Ibragimov beating Holyfield Taylor beating Hopkins Tarver beating Jones McBride beating Tyson Hatton beating Tszyu Lujan beating Castillo I agree with everyone saying each situation is different. You cant even possibly compare Tarver beating Jones to Berbick beating Ali or McBride beating Tyson.

Truth be told Johnson should only have about 6, maybe 7 losses (I forgot the actual number). Most of those defeats came by way of robberies and hometown decisions, poor Johnson can't catch a break on the cards. Hopkins did him in pretty good though. But to me, Johnson looks as good now as he did going into the fight with 'Nard. He's always a challenge. Hopkins being able to stop him is amazing, but Bernard's style was so much different back then. He was a wrecker. I think the Johnson fight was his first fight where he really started to become his prime "Boxer-Puncher" style. I actually that style a lot more then brawler Bernard.

Great points, especially with Barrera and Morales against Pacquiao. Morales was completely blown out in the second and third Pac fights but came back to look good against Diaz (I had Erik winning that match). Barrera was blown away in the first Pac fight but went on to beat Morales again, and have a pretty competetive outing against Marquez. The whole past prime thing should be taken with a grain of salt in most cases anyway. The popular excuse for Morales being the underdog in the Pacquiao rubbermatch was that he had lost 3 out of his last 4. But the Raheem fight was at 135, not 130 and his other loss was to Barrera which shouldnt have been a bad thing 4 anyone

I can see that. But the problem then lies in certain fans of aging legends distorting the truth about the condition of their fighter when they lose, or on the flipside, the haters of aging legends distorting the truth about how well their condition was at the time of the fight to discredit him. It's a very complex issue. Like, for example, what constitutes an old legend? The number of years old he is at the time of the fight? Some fighters peak much later in their career (Glen Johnson), and others peak very early and then tank off. (Not saying Glen Johnson is a legend.) I guess the only way to evaluate it is to watch it unfold a few times and really study it. Which never happens with this new breed of boxing fan who can't be bothered to watch old fights. (Idiots who say Robinson sucked because he had losses is a good example. Or people who overrate Marciano because of his "0".) Fans will be fans and haters will be haters, it's nothing new for fans or haters to try to credit or discredit a fighter when there is no need to do so. I think the best way to actually see if a fighter is old is by recent performances, not by age. I mean Morales was like 27 or 28 when he was old, others peak later or have better longevity.

It should be looked at on an individual basis rather than have a set of standards for the whole. Pacquiao beat past prime Erik Morales and Marco Barrera but it was pretty obvious that even at that stage in their careers they still would have beat anyone else at 130 at the time not named Pacquiao convincingly. There is also a saying every great fighter has 1 great fight left in them. Foreman-Holyfield was a very good fight despite Foreman's age. Great points, especially with Barrera and Morales against Pacquiao. Morales was completely blown out in the second and third Pac fights but came back to look good against Diaz (I had Erik winning that match). Barrera was blown away in the first Pac fight but went on to beat Morales again, and have a pretty competetive outing against Marquez.

It should be looked at on an individual basis rather than have a set of standards for the whole. Pacquiao beat past prime Erik Morales and Marco Barrera but it was pretty obvious that even at that stage in their careers they still would have beat anyone else at 130 at the time not named Pacquiao convincingly. There is also a saying every great fighter has 1 great fight left in them. Foreman-Holyfield was a very good fight despite Foreman's age.

Well if said "Old" legend is still top p4p 10, like Hopkins. Then when Pavlik beats him, he should get his credit. This has nothing to do with Hopkins and Pavlik. Though your point about the p4p ranking is valid.

I'm not sure if Glen Johnson necessarily wasn't in his prime when he was 32-0. I'd say he went in a big slump after Bernard whooped him pretty bad. Even then most of his decision losses were disputed so you never really know. Truth be told Johnson should only have about 6, maybe 7 losses (I forgot the actual number). Most of those defeats came by way of robberies and hometown decisions, poor Johnson can't catch a break on the cards. Hopkins did him in pretty good though. But to me, Johnson looks as good now as he did going into the fight with 'Nard. He's always a challenge. Hopkins being able to stop him is amazing, but Bernard's style was so much different back then. He was a wrecker.

Well if said "Old" legend is still top p4p 10, like Hopkins. Then when Pavlik beats him, he should get his credit.

I'm not sure if Glen Johnson necessarily wasn't in his prime when he was 32-0. I'd say he went in a big slump after Bernard whooped him pretty bad. Even then most of his decision losses were disputed so you never really know.

Pretty much, sometimes it can mean a lot, sometimes it should just be taken with a grain of salt, it depends on how much the old legend has left in his tank. I can see that. But the problem then lies in certain fans of aging legends distorting the truth about the condition of their fighter when they lose, or on the flipside, the haters of aging legends distorting the truth about how well their condition was at the time of the fight to discredit him. It's a very complex issue. Like, for example, what constitutes an old legend? The number of years old he is at the time of the fight? Some fighters peak much later in their career (Glen Johnson), and others peak very early and then tank off. (Not saying Glen Johnson is a legend.) I guess the only way to evaluate it is to watch it unfold a few times and really study it. Which never happens with this new breed of boxing fan who can't be bothered to watch old fights. (Idiots who say Robinson sucked because he had losses is a good example. Or people who overrate Marciano because of his "0".)

No I wouldn't say full credit, but I'd say it's one of the better wins on his resume. Same with Hatton. I do however think people have more of a case for saying "He was past his prime" then saying "He didn't belong in that weight class and was blown up"

Somewhat. I mean Lujan-Castilio is an example of this. Castilio was shot to pieces, but I was still impressed with Lujan's workrate and "skillz" So I think Lujan deserves credit for that win. Hatton too because he actually stopped Castilio. So full credit is to be given to Lujan for the Castillo win, despite Jose clearly being a shell of his former self? I'm honestly curious. I'll admit Lujan looked impressive, but I'm not entirely sure that was all based on how amazing he is. I think some of that has to come from the fact that Castillo was so far gone.

So would you say it's a percentage thing then? Pretty much, sometimes it can mean a lot, sometimes it should just be taken with a grain of salt, it depends on how much the old legend has left in his tank.

Is it fair to say that the impressive performance is sometimes solely because of the legend's level of deterioration? Somewhat. I mean Lujan-Castilio is an example of this. Castilio was shot to pieces, but I was still impressed with Lujan's workrate and "skillz" So I think Lujan deserves credit for that win. Hatton too because he actually stopped Castilio.

It depends on how much the old legend has left. Exactly. In some cases it doesnt mean much, in others it can mean a whole lot. If, say, the winner of Katsidis-Diaz was matched up against Erik Morales, I wouldnt be impressed. That said, if Kelly puts in a hard night of work and decisions old man Hopkins, I would consider that impressive.