Heavyweight Rankings

[StarshipTrooper]

A lot of people don't ignore those type of losses which is why many feel that fighters like Jones Jr or Holyfield are tarnishing their legacies. I don't deny that. And in a way it does because of the perception from a lot of fans even though I personally don't see it that way. That's why you have admire fighters like Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, or Lennox Lewis who were smart enough to step away at the right time. Hagler knew when to retire too. But it doesn't change the fact that Holyfield and other past it fighters didn't suffer from embarrassing losses until they got old.


And I've seen plenty of people dumb enough to believe that Jones was still at or near his best when he lost to Calzaghe. Mainly because they really didn't follow Jones when he was at his best.

Anybody judging Jones or Holyfield based off those performances is a ****ing moron. I'm sorry but no boxing historian is going to hold the Green fight against Jones. That's the realm of low-intellect casual "fans" like Dubblechin.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Boxing historians aren't wrong, you are. Historians opinions change based on a fighter's losses. That's what I'm saying.You disagree. But I defy you to show me another Ring P4P list that has Duran rated #1 or #2 after that 1980 poll ... because after he started to suck, he dropped.

And I bet you $10,000 the next time Ring comes out with all-time heavyweight list, freaking Evander Holyfield isn't going to be rated #3, like he was after he beat Tyson. Because he's lost like 10 times since then, and he'll drop down.

And he'll drop because HISTORIANS COUNT LOSSES, too, because those are part of a fighter's OVERALL CAREER HISTORY.

They don't ignore losses, they weigh how much the losses take away from a fighter's wins. They don't pretend the losses didn't happen.

I don't know where the hell you got that. But you are wrong.

Yeah, right Buddy.....Ali lost stock for losing to Holmes and Berbeck.....RIIIIIIGHT. Dayum Ray Leonard sure dropped when he lost to Camacho.....RIIIIIGHT. Historian count PRIME losses not washed-up losses: The problem is you're incapable of perceiving what prime is which is a distinction boxing historians don't have a problem with.

And btw, you're confusing a journalist who works for Ring Magazine with a boxing historian. They aren't the same thing. Then again you're probably too much of a dumb **** too know the difference :hand9:

[StarshipTrooper]

And in a way it does because of the perception from a lot of fans even though I personally don't see it that way.

Who really gives a **** what casual fans think? Casual fans are idiots. What they "think", and I use the term VERY loosely, is irrelevant.

Poet

[Barn]

Another thing to note past prime losses can actually help a fighters ranking, for example Duran vs Hagler.

[joseph5620]

Who really gives a **** what casual fans think? Casual fans are idiots. What they "think", and I use the term VERY loosely, is irrelevant.

Poet

I agree with you Poet. But unfortunately casual fans seem to be the majority here (NSB) and even on TV. Look at some of the ignorant idiots on ESPN making ****** comments about boxing when they should know better. And they're getting paid.

[Dubblechin]

Yeah, right Buddy.....Ali lost stock for losing to Holmes and Berbeck.....RIIIIIIGHT. Dayum Ray Leonard sure dropped when he lost to Camacho.....RIIIIIGHT. Historian count PRIME losses not washed-up losses: The problem is you're incapable of perceiving what prime is which is a distinction boxing historians don't have a problem with.

And btw, you're confusing a journalist who works for Ring Magazine with a boxing historian. They aren't the same thing. Then again you're probably too much of a dumb **** too know the difference :hand9:

How did Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick hurt his standing? I have him #2 all time, because he lost to the best heavyweight in the world and to a future WBC champ. Those losses didn't diminish his big wins.

THAT'S MY POINT.

You consider it all.

If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 or 15 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ...and he continued to embarrass himself for decades ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high.

But just go ahead and PICK WHICH PART OF HISTORY YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and what you want to ignore -- JOE PATERNO -- and I'm sure it'll all work out just fine.

Genius.

[StarshipTrooper]

How did Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick hurt his standing? I have him #2 all time, because he lost to the best heavyweight in the world and to a future WBC champ. Those losses didn't diminish his big wins.

THAT'S MY POINT.

You consider it all.

If he'd continued fighting, and he lost 10 times, and quit after getting punched in the armpit by Monte Masters and quit because he had to take a **** ... and came in looking like a bowling ball until he was 50 ... yeah, you're damn right he wouldn't be rated as high.

But just go ahead and PICK WHICH PART OF HISTORY YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and what you want to ignore -- JOE PATERNO -- and I'm sure it'll all work out just fine.

Genius.

Boxing Historians take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding a fight including what career stage the fighters were in. It's YOU who are cherry picking: You just want the name of the fighter and choose to ignore everything else. That's cherry picking FACTS and is typical of the intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from moronic casual fans.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

How did Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick hurt his standing? I have him #2 all time

And btw thank you for finally admitting that losses when you're washed up dosen't hurt your standing

[McGoorty]

Boxing historians aren't wrong, you are. Historians opinions change based on a fighter's losses. That's what I'm saying.You disagree. But I defy you to show me another Ring P4P list that has Duran rated #1 or #2 after that 1980 poll ... because after he started to suck, he dropped.

And I bet you $10,000 the next time Ring comes out with all-time heavyweight list, freaking Evander Holyfield isn't going to be rated #3, like he was after he beat Tyson. Because he's lost like 10 times since then, and he'll drop down.

And he'll drop because HISTORIANS COUNT LOSSES, too, because those are part of a fighter's OVERALL CAREER HISTORY.

They don't ignore losses, they weigh how much the losses take away from a fighter's wins. They don't pretend the losses didn't happen.

I don't know where the hell you got that. But you are wrong.

No, losses are losses that's true,,, but on degrees, you know that, if he lost when washed up,.. to a bum who never did anything,.. still a pretty bad loss.... but to a HOF'r... understandable....... I don't count them a whole lot,.. it just takes a bit of lustre off, but not much...... same as a loss when 18 years of age to a world class man in his late 20's doesn't hardly affect Les Darcy's career resume, especially as he never went down, and went 20 rounds..... just to use an example of one fighter....... but of course you can't just say we'll strike a decision or stoppage loss off their record... especially when its say Haglers decision loss to Leonard...... we can argue that Hagler should have won the fight, but that loss stands....... unless you can prove the fight was a fix beyond doubt of course,... I'm happy to strike a "loss" like that off the boxrec stats. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- just one thing,.. No Decision contests on Boxrec........ None of those 10 round ND's count as wins or losses, there is NOTHING OFFICIAL about them... the mass of newspaper decisions are nothing more than a guide and of interest to the fan or historian.... Plus many of those newspaper decisions had opposite verdicts and accounts.

[McGoorty]

Anybody judging Jones or Holyfield based off those performances is a ****ing moron. I'm sorry but no boxing historian is going to hold the Green fight against Jones. That's the realm of low-intellect casual "fans" like Dubblechin.

Poet

I don't think anyone should get too carried away by that green loss, but it happened just the same, Poet, Green was nothing near as good as Jones, but you cannot just take all credit away from Danny Green, for a fighter with the lower level of talent, a win over Jones, even at that stage of his career ranks very high on Greens achievements, the highlight definitely. Point I'm making mate is that there are always two men in there. Roy Jones's biggest mistake was that as usual he thought a fight was all about him, Green manned up, walked out and put doubt in a million minds, ohhhh dear, me boyo's chin seems prett-ty vulnerable. It is Roy Jones's responsibility to judge if he is still capable of handling his next opponent,.... there MUST be a price to pay for hubris,,,, a particular trait of many fighters who still think they are unbeatable. ......... I don't at all disagree that the loss was no catastrophe........... but sometimes, a lesser fighter beats a big name,.... it doesn't make Green a legend in any way ('cept in his mind and his mates).. No-one twisted Roys arm into the Green fight... In my opinion, once a sportsmans best days are gone... do yourself a favour and get out and hang the gloves up, and it'll stop me cringing when they do.