Is a Past Prime Fighter in a No Lose-All Win Situation?

[-PBP-]

When fighters continue to fight past their primes, it seems that all of their wins enhance their legacy but all of their losses are ignored because they are past prime.

-If you look at Bernard Hopkins, he was given a ton of credit for being the oldest world champion and continuing to win fights while up there in age. These wins help his legacy but the minute he gets dominated by Kovalev, he's past prime and that loss does not count.

-If Roy Jones (hypothetically) went on to win a cruiserweight title, it would enhance his legacy. But if he gets credit for the wins, shouldn't he be penalized for his losses.

-Julio Cesar Chavez was a world title holder and on a winning streak heading into the fight with Oscar De La Hoya. The wins help his legacy but he is not penalized for the loss to Oscar nor is Oscar given much credit for his wins.


There are a ton of other examples of giving past prime fighters credit for wins but a pass for losses. How do you feel about this?

[therealpugilist]

When fighters continue to fight past their primes, it seems that all of their wins enhance their legacy but all of their losses are ignored because they are past prime.

-If you look at Bernard Hopkins, he was given a ton of credit for being the oldest world champion and continuing to win fights while up there in age. These wins help his legacy but the minute he gets dominated by Kovalev, he's past prime and that loss does not count.

-If Roy Jones (hypothetically) went on to win a cruiserweight title, it would enhance his legacy. But if he gets credit for the wins, shouldn't he be penalized for his losses.

-Julio Cesar Chavez was a world title holder and on a winning streak heading into the fight with Oscar De La Hoya. The wins help his legacy but he is not penalized for the loss to Oscar nor is Oscar given much credit for his wins.


There are a ton of other examples of giving past prime fighters credit for wins but a pass for losses. How do you feel about this?

depends on the fighter....fighting past prime has helped Hopkins legacy considering most his big fights happened after his 30th birthday

Jones on the other hand reached his prime quicker and was done as an elite fighter at 35-36

with Hopkins people ignore his loses because he was able to fight at high level at an advanced age but not looking at the obvious.....whether he was in his prime or past it...Hopkins always had trouble with fighters his size or larger(Jones, Dawson, Pascal, Taylor, Calzaghe, Kov) who had the edge in speed, could outwork him and also had good skills.

He is overrated as a tactician because he was able to be successful as an old man.


Hopkins took a lot of calculated risks....He shouldve fought wright and pavlik at 160 not 170 or at least a little 168.


his best wins are over guys moving up to face him and people ignore his short comings as a fighter....he doesnt press the gas when he has an opponent who can outmaneuver him or outspeed him. Instead of adjusting like say Mayweather, whitaker, does he makes you fight his fight.

[Redd Foxx]

I think it's rightfully so, because they are beating expectations. We don't expect a fighter to do great past 40 so, when he does, we give him credit, sometime extra credit.

I understand how it frustrating for fans of the guy who beats the aging fighter though. For instance, Kovalev beating Hopkins. They want Kov to get credit since Hopkins was supposedly on a tear. I think they're intentionally ignoring that Hopkins got beaten easily by Dawson (who many Kov fans love to say was trash) and was just smashing and grabbing his was through fights over the last few years. That's not to say Kovalev isn't great, only that the Hopkins win wasn't as meaningful as people want to make it out to be. I think Kov will have much better wins than that in his future.

[Luilun]

Mosley, Pacquaio, and Delahoya shouldn't be penalized for their losses to Floyd they're were past prime fighters specialy Pacquaio

[DreamerUSA]

When fighters continue to fight past their primes, it seems that all of their wins enhance their legacy but all of their losses are ignored because they are past prime.

-If you look at Bernard Hopkins, he was given a ton of credit for being the oldest world champion and continuing to win fights while up there in age. These wins help his legacy but the minute he gets dominated by Kovalev, he's past prime and that loss does not count.

-If Roy Jones (hypothetically) went on to win a cruiserweight title, it would enhance his legacy. But if he gets credit for the wins, shouldn't he be penalized for his losses.

-Julio Cesar Chavez was a world title holder and on a winning streak heading into the fight with Oscar De La Hoya. The wins help his legacy but he is not penalized for the loss to Oscar nor is Oscar given much credit for his wins.


There are a ton of other examples of giving past prime fighters credit for wins but a pass for losses. How do you feel about this?

Losses as a general rule don't mean a lot to me. If your taking risks and fighting the guys you are supposed to, you are going to take an L here and there, especially past prime. Someone is going to have your number at some point. Though I'm also someone that gives the other guy credit, like in your Chavez vs De La Hoya example. Oscar gets full credit in my book for that win. Though I also give the bigger guy full credit for beating the smaller guy. In general if a guy wins, he gets credit.

I also think there is a big difference looking at a fighter past prime, like B-Hop, versus a guy that is obviously shot to pieces like Roy. For instance, Kovalev gets full credit for beating B-Hop imo, but if he were to beat Roy, it would be laughable at this point.

So I guess the answer to your question is it depends, but lean heavily towards a loss don't mean ****. You can't undo what has already been accomplished just because of an L.

[j0zef]

You have a great point, and in general, I do agree that it's almost a no-lose situation for the fighter that is past his prime. What's doubly interesting though is that generally speaking, we will trump up the wins, downplay the losses but still give lots of credit to fighters who beat the old guy.

For the most recent examples, take a look at Kovalev-Hopkins and Fury-Wlad. When it comes to P4P lists, virtually everyone puts Kovalev in the Top3, usually citing both resume and the eye-test. However the best scalp on his resume is a 50 year old Hopkins. So beating Hopkins is enough to cement his spot on a P4P list. But on the flipside, we think that Hopkins loss to Kovalev is due to his age.

Then we also have Fury-Wlad. Majority of people here are saying "don't blame Wlad's age, Fury DOMINATED him, he's the better boxer plain and simple" - which of course is complete bollocks since there was very little domination shown by either fighter, and whether people like it or not, Wlad IS 15 years younger.


In my eyes, a fighters' legacy does not get tarnished if they continue fighting way past their prime. I'll continue to say that RJJ is the best P4P fighter ever no matter how many times he gets KTFO by Enzo.
Who are we to say when a man should stop doing what he loves?

[The Big Dunn]

When fighters continue to fight past their primes, it seems that all of their wins enhance their legacy but all of their losses are ignored because they are past prime.

-If you look at Bernard Hopkins, he was given a ton of credit for being the oldest world champion and continuing to win fights while up there in age. These wins help his legacy but the minute he gets dominated by Kovalev, he's past prime and that loss does not count.

-If Roy Jones (hypothetically) went on to win a cruiserweight title, it would enhance his legacy. But if he gets credit for the wins, shouldn't he be penalized for his losses.

-Julio Cesar Chavez was a world title holder and on a winning streak heading into the fight with Oscar De La Hoya. The wins help his legacy but he is not penalized for the loss to Oscar nor is Oscar given much credit for his wins.


There are a ton of other examples of giving past prime fighters credit for wins but a pass for losses. How do you feel about this?

I think its reasonable to give a great fighter a pass if they lose to a younger, untested fighter on the come up if they are past their prime. Historically, fighters are put in with aging greats to see if they are ready to take the next step up. The aging great is expected to lose so there is no reason to give them crap for helping the next generation. Should the aging great win against a younger top talent, they should get praise because they were supposed to lose.

[-PBP-]

I think it's rightfully so, because they are beating expectations. We don't expect a fighter to do great past 40 so, when he does, we give him credit, sometime extra credit.

I understand how it frustrating for fans of the guy who beats the aging fighter though. For instance, Kovalev beating Hopkins. They want Kov to get credit since Hopkins was supposedly on a tear. I think they're intentionally ignoring that Hopkins got beaten easily by Dawson (who many Kov fans love to say was trash) and was just smashing and grabbing his was through fights over the last few years. That's not to say Kovalev isn't great, only that the Hopkins win wasn't as meaningful as people want to make it out to be. I think Kov will have much better wins than that in his future.

This is where my issue comes in. The young fighter is basically in a lose-lose situation when fighting the aging champion. If he loses he's been exposed. If he wins he beat a shot fighter.

I guess you can say all young fighters go through that and it's sort of a necessary "rights of passage" to be the next champion in line and put yourself in position to land bigger and better fights that do more for your legacy.