Losing fights at end of career: how does it affect a legacy?

[Legends456]

Greats like Ali, Holyfield, and RJJ all had rough endings to their careers, but are still (rightly) regarded very highly.

Some more recent fighters I can think of have had some late losses and have had their stock fall dramatically.

Would this be based off of a perceived lack of a high peak?

More specifically, does having a stratospheric peak successfully offset a rather unglamorous late career?

Does having a good (but not great) peak but never losing, lead to a high ranking overall?

please let me know what you think, as I am trying to get a good read on why some fighters are ranked higher on this forum than others.

[Groin Grabber]

Not at all. It's embarrassing at the time but doesn't hurt at all.
Few times its a passing of the torch but other times it's a desperation move for money.

Roid Jones career is intact despite being caught with steroids, getting knocked tf out in his prime and knocked tf out several times past it. Yet people still value him and hold him as an ATG.

Edit: it's fvkcing hilarious cause all 3 guys you named have been busted for steroids. If that doesn't taint a legacy then nothing will

[TMLT87]

Guess you have to look at it on a case by case basis, but generally i'd say losses late in a career tend to be treated with more lenience when its all said and done.

[famicommander]

Your losses don't erase your wins. You are defined by your accomplishments, not your failures.

[hugh grant]

It really doesn't effect it much at all mostly Only thing is it gives your critics ammunition to make excuse and take joy in.your losses.
Id be more inclined to criticize boxers who didn't challenge themselves in their prime, or try get it easy and advantages.
But it does effect it a little, people will be less inclined to look through rose tinted specs and try be more balanced. I mean rjj was nearly srr equal after beating Ruiz.
So each case is taken on its own merit

[Smash]

game management, guys who retire with their 0 tend to have some noise over who when where how they fought their opponents with maybe controversies judges calls marinating etc in there as well, if these guys did lose a few in later years i think it would affect their legacies a bit, undefeated is still undefeated in quite a lot of peoples eyes, once the 0 goes so does a bit of that aura, u cant get it back

[BodyBagz]

If the L's stack up, then yes.
Unless the prime section was otherworldly.

[BoxingParadigm]

I think a fighter's peak and the context of late career losses can heavily impact the overall view of his legacy. Ali for example, was very impressive in his prime, but also accomplished unbelievable things when he was past his peak. This made the late career losses almost irrelevant, because there was so much evidence of his greatness.

Roy Jones Jr is a different case, even though he's still rightfully considered an ATG, he was in the running to be looked at SRR's level. His fall from grace was sudden, unexpected and tragic. To make matters worse, upon further reflection of his career, outside of early career wins against Hopkins and Toney, Roy Jones legacy didn't have much in the way of big names to help him boost his legacy further. He was a phenom and considered the best Lightheavyweight during his time, but he didn't fight absolutely everyone the boxing public thought he needed to beat. He moved up to heavyweight and won a title, but didn't build upon that. He came back down to 175lbs and started getting stopped, losing the big fights, etc.

[Smash]

imagine floyd calzaghe & ward without the 0's

their smugness level would certainly be reduced and as for their legacy, well it would come in for some comment on here anyway

[elfag]

In the short term people are hard on them and will underrate them. but once they are finally retired people will focus on their primes when rating their careers.