Is it possible to discredit any boxers legacy?

[Technical_Skill]

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.

Yeah, we might have to dig up another calzaghe thread, they are hilarious.

[mathed]

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?

The fact is that people have their own personal reasons for liking and disliking certain boxers and they are rightfully entitled to these opinions, which is precisely why boxing forums exist- to debate using these opinions and other known facts that can be found on the web or have been discovered by the debaters elsewhere.

At the end of the day, the boxers that are ultimately being debated about were the ones in the ring doing the work and are the only ones who know why or why not certain things happened or did not happen during their careers. People can blame fighters for ducking people when it may have been a team management thing or a promoter thing but when the smoke clears, it is once again only the fighters who know why or why not things happened and it is very speculative to assume that we, the fans, know what they were thinking or what truly transpired behind closed doors. JMHO

[Luis12]

i can't do that with a boxer, i.e pac, that is fighting the best out there. win or lose he have the heart to get in the ring with fighters that are real challenges.

i can do that with a boxer that avoid other boxers with the only reason to avoid defeat.

[Technical_Skill]

i can do that with a boxer that avoid other boxers with the only reason to avoid defeat.

Good, more confirmation its okay to bash calzaghe.