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

[daggum]

most guys it really doesnt matter, guys like wilder who were entirely built on hype it completely crushes their legacy because when you look back at who they beat...cant find anything

[ELPacman]

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

I like this because I think it holds up most, especially in a sport like boxing. Boxing is a young man's sport so most fighters accomplishments happen when they're young. If they can continue with success when they're considered seniors of the sport, then that is a bonus for them.

I like to remember what they did that was incredible/amazing during their career. Even if they come up short at times. It's better to have tried than not and worst, is having regrets or folks asking you how you would have done if you faced so and so up until your dead.

Most likely than not, every amazing/great fighter will end their career on a low because they stay in too long. There is no way they should be held to those end of career moments when they're not so great. They're no longer in their prime, no longer have the same hunger. So many attributes that made them great are no longer with them at that point.

[El_Mero]

Depends on if there was a legacy to begin with

[Smash]

sometimes it depends on whether u like the fighter or not

if u like a fighter and he loses a few aged 35+ then u might say, hes a bit slowed down now, not as good as he was, out of prime, lots of wear and tear etc, but if u dont like the guy, then its ah ha, look! i told u the guy is just a hype job, over rated bum, see, once he faced THAT style (no matter the age) or whatever he was exposed

[hugh grant]

If you lose to fighters, boxing fans know youd beat when you was at your best, people will be lenient on you. I mean do people really say SRL wasn't great as he lost to hector comacho?I
SRLdid seem to age overnight though, 35 isn't that old if srl gets critisicm

[KillaMane26]

It only really hurts short term

[dannnnn]

Depends how extreme. It depends on many factors actually and varies massively by each individual case, but it definitely can and often does, even if you - as a fan - wish it didn't.

Be honest, how many of you rate RJJ as highly now on an all-time list as you would have if he'd retired after the John Ruiz win? Or even after the Glen Johnson loss? Seeing him slumped over in a heap so many times is a difficult image to disregard. A drop-off that severe is sure to tarnish the memory, and what is a fighter's legacy after all if not simply how they are remembered?

MMA fighter Tony Ferguson is currently in the process of absolutely obliterating whatever legacy he had by losing eight (and counting) in a row. Even when you're no longer in your prime and everyone knows it, losses leave an impression. It just depends to what degree.

[BodyBagz]

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

You make it seems as if 0's are easy to acquire
Right
Anyone with an 0 never fought anyone

Even fighters with a bunch of L's are smug.
A professional athlete is usually smug

[Smash]

You make it seems as if 0's are easy to acquire

I've got one

[TintaBoricua]

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

The more years pass, the more I become inclined to believe boxing is just one big eye test.

Some fighters have better scalps on their resume than others, but one would pick another fighter with less accomplishments even if they did less.

It’s all on a case by case basis, I think.

Wladimir Klitschko was far more accomplished than his brother Vitali, but head to head I firmly believe that if they had fought Wladimir would’ve been the underdog.

Miguel Cotto was most likely more versatile and has perhaps more big names on his resume BUT…Felix Trinidad would beat him head to head (when it comes to Puerto Rican fighters).

Roy Jones, Jr. is my absolute favorite example to point out when this topic comes up and I’m glad to see many posters mentioning it.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: as high as Roy Jones, Jr. is rated as, it is unfathomable how god-like he would’ve been looked at if he had walked away after claiming the heavyweight title. Sure, you’d get revisionist historians and such, but without the losses to Tarver, Johnson, and all these losses to Enzo, Lebedev, that Australian guy (“when you beat a legend, you BECOME a legend!”), Roy Jones would’ve been looked at as a modern day deity amongst the boxing community.