Tweet
I keep reading through the forums and I keep coming across all of these posts slamming fighters because of losses they suffered when they were old.
Isn't it time we judged their greatness at their peak, and not when they were old?
Most older fighters keep on fighting to make more money. It's that simple. Most fighters are old by 35. It's rare that a fighter is still in top form past 35. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Speed and agility fighters normally suffer the worst end of it. Fighters who rely on raw power and tricky ring saavy usually hang in there longer.
Should Evander Holyfield, who to me, was the marquee heavy of the 90's and a phenomenal fighter, be judged a bum because he stayed around a bit too long? He was in some of the best light heavyweight and heavyweight battles I've ever seen, but he did lose to Larry Donald. He also lost to Toney and Byrd, but we all know he was shot then. Would James Toney wipe the floor with a 28 year old Evander Holyfield? I didn't see James Toney jumping up and down to fight him back then. Maybe they could hang, but maybe not.
Was Mike Tyson a bum because he burned out as quickly as a shooting star? He was a great one for a time, his peak came and went quickly, but do we judge his ring greatness because he burned out too soon?
What about Roy Jones? He's one of the greatest all time, yet I hear people slamming him because he got a little old and lost that edge he had. His last knockout loss was disturbing to me, but that's not the RJ I knew.
How about Muhammad Ali? He lost badly late in his career, so should we say he wasn't any good? The man took a terrible beating from Larry Holmes, yet he still stood in there, brain damage and all, and they had to stop the fight. That to me, was a testament to how tough Muhammad Ali really was. To me, the greatest to put on a pair of gloves ever.
How about Joe Louis? Hounded by the IRS, an aging fighter sojourned on, only to be KO'd by Rocky Marciano. Would the Rock KO a prime Louis? I have my doubts.
George Foreman fought late in life successfully, as well as Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran (to some extent), Archie Moore, and most recently, Bernard Hopkins.
Are these guys the all time greats over the others because they won past 40? I say no to that.
It's a neat accomplishment to win past 40, but not everybody's clock ticks at the same rate.
Judge the great ones when they were great, that's what I say.
I am now 39 years old, and my body tells me I can't do the things I used to. It's the same for all of us, even though we might still have that fighting spirit, wear and tear and old man time catches up with us all
Give the great ones respect, and realize that time stands still for no man.
Isn't it time we judged their greatness at their peak, and not when they were old?
Most older fighters keep on fighting to make more money. It's that simple. Most fighters are old by 35. It's rare that a fighter is still in top form past 35. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Speed and agility fighters normally suffer the worst end of it. Fighters who rely on raw power and tricky ring saavy usually hang in there longer.
Should Evander Holyfield, who to me, was the marquee heavy of the 90's and a phenomenal fighter, be judged a bum because he stayed around a bit too long? He was in some of the best light heavyweight and heavyweight battles I've ever seen, but he did lose to Larry Donald. He also lost to Toney and Byrd, but we all know he was shot then. Would James Toney wipe the floor with a 28 year old Evander Holyfield? I didn't see James Toney jumping up and down to fight him back then. Maybe they could hang, but maybe not.
Was Mike Tyson a bum because he burned out as quickly as a shooting star? He was a great one for a time, his peak came and went quickly, but do we judge his ring greatness because he burned out too soon?
What about Roy Jones? He's one of the greatest all time, yet I hear people slamming him because he got a little old and lost that edge he had. His last knockout loss was disturbing to me, but that's not the RJ I knew.
How about Muhammad Ali? He lost badly late in his career, so should we say he wasn't any good? The man took a terrible beating from Larry Holmes, yet he still stood in there, brain damage and all, and they had to stop the fight. That to me, was a testament to how tough Muhammad Ali really was. To me, the greatest to put on a pair of gloves ever.
How about Joe Louis? Hounded by the IRS, an aging fighter sojourned on, only to be KO'd by Rocky Marciano. Would the Rock KO a prime Louis? I have my doubts.
George Foreman fought late in life successfully, as well as Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran (to some extent), Archie Moore, and most recently, Bernard Hopkins.
Are these guys the all time greats over the others because they won past 40? I say no to that.
It's a neat accomplishment to win past 40, but not everybody's clock ticks at the same rate.
Judge the great ones when they were great, that's what I say.
I am now 39 years old, and my body tells me I can't do the things I used to. It's the same for all of us, even though we might still have that fighting spirit, wear and tear and old man time catches up with us all
Give the great ones respect, and realize that time stands still for no man.
Comment