Is it possible to discredit any boxers legacy?

[Jeups]

At the end of the day, even a boxers greatest wins on paper can be disputed.

Im a huge manny pacquiao fan but again i also know of alot of reasons to discredit his legacy.

It could be argued that he lost twice to Marquez, that DLH was weight drained and over the hill or that Ricky Hatton was never a top class boxer or that his training camp was the resaon behind his failure.

Im not saying i agree with any of these statements, i would argue the opposite. But there are always going to be people with reasons for discrediting a boxer.

Is there any boxer, past or present, whose biggest wins and whose legacy cannot be disputed or is this simply the way with boxing?

[Technical_Skill]

Good question, all i know is, im gonna discredit Joe Calzaghe's legacy till the very end.

[brently1979]

Good question, all i know is, im gonna discredit Joe Calzaghe's legacy till the very end.

A lot of people will be doing that til the day they die.

[Technical_Skill]

A lot of people will be doing that til the day they die.

Rightly so, that **** be like isreal and *********, 100 years from now and that **** will still be cooking like it just happened yesterday.

[brently1979]

Rightly so, that **** be like isreal and *********, 100 years from now and that **** will still be cooking like it just happened yesterday.

LOL. Yeah I agree with you. JC isn't all that great.

[Allucard]

Good question, all i know is, im gonna discredit Joe Calzaghe's legacy till the very end.

That's a legit exception sometime someone else will try to pull the same thing off and people will say under the cover of their grey hair: "yeah slapzaghe is good but he'll never be as great and Calzaghe was, a true legend of the sport who beat prime Roy Jones and prime Bernard Hopkins, not to mention Bika, a great fighter many don't know, due to their lack of knowledge " And then they will make a movie about it in which Calzaghe will be played by the brightest Hollywood star but still look like a prick despite his efforts!
Truth is Calzaghe was a good fighter yes he was, but to put him ahead of Mosley, Hopkins, Trinidad, Mayweather my man or Toney, Roy Jones my man and others is just ******. Talent-wise Joe is close to Hatton, his countrymen. Both shown to be very vulnerable when matched against quality (and old) opposition with the main difference being Ricky risking allot more vs 2 p4p fighters in their primes whereas the closest Joe got to fighting a quality prime fighter was in 43 year old Bernard Hopkins. Note: If Kessler and Lacy where quality opponents why would they still, so many year later be fighting nobodies? Thanks.

[Mersey]

You can discredit every boxer there ever was, it's a joke that even the greatest boxers of all time still get discredited in someway.

[brently1979]

That's a legit exception sometime someone else will try to pull the same thing off and people will say under the cover of their grey hair: "yeah slapzaghe is good but he'll never be as great and Calzaghe was, a true legend of the sport who beat prime Roy Jones and prime Bernard Hopkins, not to mention Bika, a great fighter many don't know, due to their lack of knowledge " And then they will make a movie about it in which Calzaghe will be played by the brightest Hollywood star but still look like a prick despite his efforts!
Truth is Calzaghe was a good fighter yes he was, but to put him ahead of Mosley, Hopkins, Trinidad, Mayweather my man or Toney, Roy Jones my man and others is just ******. Talent-wise Joe is close to Hatton, his countrymen. Both shown to be very vulnerable when matched against quality (and old) opposition with the main difference being Ricky risking allot more vs 2 p4p fighters in their primes whereas the closest Joe got to fighting a quality prime fighter was in 43 year old Bernard Hopkins. Note: If Kessler and Lacy where quality opponents why would they still, so many year later be fighting nobodies? Thanks.

This is a really good point. I had Kessler in higher regard, but I don't think he is all that good now.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

At the end of the day, even a boxers greatest wins on paper can be disputed.

Im a huge manny pacquiao fan but again i also know of alot of reasons to discredit his legacy.

It could be argued that he lost twice to Marquez, that DLH was weight drained and over the hill or that Ricky Hatton was never a top class boxer or that his training camp was the resaon behind his failure.

Im not saying i agree with any of these statements, i would argue the opposite. But there are always going to be people with reasons for discrediting a boxer.

Is there any boxer, past or present, whose biggest wins and whose legacy cannot be disputed or is this simply the way with boxing?

No, you can't disscredit someone's legacy, the only thing you can do is argue whether or not it stands up to other fighter's legacy's.

In the case of Pacman, yes you can argue that he lost to JMM twice but either way, they were close fights against a great opponent. Against DLH, we know DLH was way past his prime and most don't look too much into that victory but it doesn't hurt him as a fighter because he dominated an old DLH which he should have.

At the end of the day when you look at someones career, you can only evaluate them for the talent they had around them and how many of those great fighters they beat in the process. In the case of Manny, he's well on his way to becoming an ATG.

[Technical_Skill]

This is a really good point. I had Kessler in higher regard, but I don't think he is all that good now.

I think kessler is the best at 168, after froch beating taylor that confirmed it for me, because kessler would beat froch imo.