fighters' legacies

Here's an open ended question I want to hear you guys' thoughts on.

Why is it that fighters are most remembered for their failures and shortcomings? Even after a successful career people always bring to mind that one night they didn't have it or that one flaw that kept them from being great.

Naz only lost once in his career and his name is always linked to Barerra. DLH was a great fighter in his prime but some define him by the Trinidad night. Etc. etc.

Does a fighter's limitations say more about them than their strengths?

Because there's always people that will hate on a fighter no matter what. People will ignore the legacy of a fighter just to nail on them their shortcomings if they disliked them throughout their whole career. And others they liked they feel sorry for. Holyfield and Roy Jones for example. Nobody is saying that Holyfield is a nobody because he got tko'd by James toney nor are they saying that he is overrated cause he only fought cruiserweights a past his prime Tyson, beat an unmotivated Bowe and was beatin in both Lewis fights. Nobody is saying that about Holyfield. But Roy who has very huge accomplishments but was hated for a part of his career people will always bring up his two back to back knockouts no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Because there's always people that will hate on a fighter no matter what. People will ignore the legacy of a fighter just to nail on them their shortcomings if they disliked them throughout their whole career. And others they liked they feel sorry for. Holyfield and Roy Jones for example. Nobody is saying that Holyfield is a nobody because he got tko'd by James toney nor are they saying that he is overrated cause he only fought cruiserweights a past his prime Tyson, beat an unmotivated Bowe and was beatin in both Lewis fights. Nobody is saying that about Holyfield. But Roy who has very huge accomplishments but was hated for a part of his career people will always bring up his two back to back knockouts no matter what.

---

Amen brother. IF a fighter doesn't lose in his career, then there will always be doubters who say that he never fought opposition of the highest calibre. Anyone up for a campaign to try and look at fighters positively, and praise their accomplishments?


Naah me neither, if they snooze they lose, and if they don't win everything, then they just ain't good enough.

Honestly...I remember more of the good than I do the bad...as long as it's not so bad. Here's an example:

I know that sounds like a loaded answer...but I have issues with the fact that Roy got ripped so hard by Tarver in all 3 fights & then KO'd by Johnson.

I will always remember Hopkins for his run...not his losses because the losses really weren't that decisive or devastating.

It's an odd answer, I know...but that's the only way that I can explain it.

It depends on the fighter IMO EG NAZ he had a great career but was cocky and arrogant
so people like to use the one thing they can to tarnish all the success...Plus there are guys out there who's whole career is defined by one fight or moment and the rest of their careers they did nothing...so the one great thing is overlooked or few big things compared to dozens of short comings........No matter how good or succesful there is always one guy who will find a way to detract from it