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

[warp1432]

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"

[ßringer]

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 ****** because he had losses is a good example. Or people who overrate Marciano because of his "0".)

[warp1432]

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.

[Darkstar]

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

[ßringer]

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.

[ßringer]

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.

[shadeyfizzle]

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.

[El Dominicano]

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.

Hopkins in his prime was a BEAST. He'd jump on you with a tight guard and throw short powerful hooks. His defense on the inside was amazing. You just couldn't faze him. Reminds me of how Clottey fights. Seen Clottey vs Margarito?

[ßringer]

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.

[ElGranLuchador]

u forgot margarito beating frankie randall he gets no credit at all for that win