Do Bad Decisions Affect Legacy?

[BattlingNelson]

No a bad decision doesn't always affect a fighter's legacy. People love a good back story. If the fighter can make up for mistakes in the past it's attactive.

Well, imagine if Ward didn't retire undefeated, but instead had 3 losses. 2 by DQ and 1 by decision. if so people wouldn't talk about him and Calzaghe in the same breath.

[BattlingNelson]

And here's another one:

If Felix Sturm had got the decision over De La Hoya, he would probably not have stayed home in Germany subsequently and he'd have had a much better chance of becoming an international superstar. Same for Axel Schulz who got shafted against Foreman.

[The Old LefHook]

I feel strongly that bad decisions affect legacy--some get the benefit of the bad decision and some get the shaft. It affects his income, his professional status and his ability to get work. Most people agree. We can the say the words of redress but giving a man back his due lost by another's stinking decision cannot be accomplished fully. He might get back a small part of his glory, but only that much through the recognition that he was shafted.

[chrisJS]

I think bad decisions should be properly scrutinized and should affect the winner (i.e not get FULL credit) and the loser (means a LOT more than the L on paper) but it often doesn't because time goes on and unless it was a mega fight people just tend to go off the paper. I think people were way too fast to just accept Ward-Kovalev I and I've noticed that's a thing in recent years that the new generation of fans just accept decisions even if they are egregious and they don't factor in that a fight isn't as simple as a winner and a loser.

I see more and more people just say "Oh well fighter A could never win a big fight..He got exposed" but maybe fighter A was robbed.

I tend to really care about the action in the ring. If I am doing some kind of historical ranking if the fight is an egregious decision I just use my personal and the consensus scorecard. If it's a 7-5 either way decision that I disagreed with I'll respect it but give massive credit to the "loser".

An example of a series that was poorly scored and has severely affected the rankings and ways both fighters are viewed is the Emile Griffith-Luis Rodriguez series. Griffith got a 3-1 win and I think even his most ardent fans would say at best it was 2-2 with the general consensus leaning towards 3-1 Rodriguez. I personally scored all four for Rodriguez and therefore I rate him a lot higher than most. Griffith got in the inaugural hall of fame class of 1990, Rodriguez had to wait until 1997 or 1998 about a yea after he died which is sad to me.

Whitaker-Chavez for example I give Chavez no credit for getting a draw with the great Whitaker. I give Whitaker credit for dominating the great Chavez.

[rudy]

My answer to that question is a resounding Yes. The current thread on Oscar/Tito got me to reconsidering.

To historically come out on top of your generation, or not to, that is the question.

The L in the record books means everything, despite our protests to the contrary as living contemporaries.

Recognition for a deserved victory would have put Oscar over the top. By that time people and maybe all of boxing were thinking they were just a little satiated with everything Oscar. The official loss can in some respects be regarded as a guarded admonishment of one who was simply too successful and goody-goody for his own good at the wrong time in his career with respect to legacy.

Hell, people are still wont to say that Oscar could never win the big ones. It is easy to she where that part of his reputation got started.

In fact, I posit that even horrible decisions can affect a man's legacy in a big way, but I am going to let you vote on it. I believe even moderately bad decisions can affect legacy quite negatively. Enough generations go by and you are left mostly with what is written in the win/loss column of books. Even where you can go review films for yourself, that does little to mitigate the impact of an unjust decision and its long reach down the corridors of history.

Even where it is recognized that a fighter got a raw deal, there is never anything official about this. A few people like us might write about it on a boxing forum read by a few hundred people; a few scribes try to keep the notion going against the forgetful tide of history.

But the boxer is never given his due for that fight and it may have been the biggest fight of his generation. No stamp of approval for all time to come, despite a few protesters lifting sleepy heads from time to time..

You go vote now.

Did not affect Marvin Hagler get a draw with Vito )

[The Old LefHook]

Draws are far less damaging to legacy than a loss is these days. No one thinks a thing about the couple of draws on Robinson's prime record. Losses would be a different matter, even to that legacy to be scrutinized and debated endlessly..

[OctoberRed]

Draws are far less damaging to legacy than a loss is these days. No one thinks a thing about the couple of draws on Robinson's prime record. Losses would be a different matter, even to that legacy to be scrutinized and debated endlessly..

With social media, and news feeds, a draw or loss is far more out there these days. Back then it was all about newspapers and most people had no access to an overseas or out of state newspaper.