Damaging a Legacy

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

Well it definitely takes the polish off in a short/ mid term perspective.
Long term? I dunno, we ain't there yet, or maybe it ain't for us to say???

But right now, I think all talk of legacy for current fighters is out of order.

Know what you saying but new fans coming in now will think Roy Jones and Holyfield are journeyman bums. Only in time when they look back will they realise what they were. Casual fans may never appreciate.

And an end record with like 10 defeats (not sure what they both on) don't look good does it to an outsider but if they can get on all time lists then they will do ok ;)

By the way I don't remember Ali losing twice by KO !??! Just the one inside distance defeat when Dundee pulled him out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

H, there is a fundmental flaw in Marb's logic though. He thinks Tyson only made 1 title defence, so he probably never ranked him that highly anyway. :rolleyes:

I agree actually, to the people that care about the sport we are often saddended to see it, but we can remember the good old days.

Some fighters seem to actually grow their legacy, Hopkins for example is still making his!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

I completely agree with you. Firstly, it's immensely arrogant of anybody to try and 'leave a legacy' ...... the whole point og having a history amongst the pantheon of greats is that you are judged after you have retired and you are judged by other people. Someone like Henry Maske taking undemanding fights against second rate fighters is much more telling than the fact he lovingly polished his record so his 'legacy' was untarnished.

Emperors, kings and statesmen leave legacies, not athletes.

Someone like Mike Tyson, for example, who was a genuinely fearsome and electrifying perfomer in his short prime would be remembered for just that - not the fact that he fell out of love for the sport, lost all discipline and direction and fought on for too long. People like Danny Williams didn't beat MIKE TYSON, they were just burgling an empty house. Doesnt affect how he will be remembered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

H, there is a fundmental flaw in Marb's logic though. He thinks Tyson only made 1 title defence, so he probably never ranked him that highly anyway. :rolleyes:

---

Two defenses.

Want to explain how Tyson won the crown from Berbick when the reigning champion, Mike Spinks, was still active?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Know what you saying but new fans coming in now will think Roy Jones and Holyfield are journeyman bums. Only in time when they look back will they realise what they were. Casual fans may never appreciate.

And an end record with like 10 defeats (not sure what they both on) don't look good does it to an outsider but if they can get on all time lists then they will do ok ;)

By the way I don't remember Ali losing twice by KO !??! Just the one inside distance defeat when Dundee pulled him out

---

Yeah but the casual or the rookie fan isn't the guy who carries any weight in asessing greatness anyway is he? I mean if he were? Guys like Emile Griffith, Ezzard Charles and Dick Tiger and think "journeymen."

Isn't it the boxing nerds, geeks and well, folks like us who really decide this stuff and educate the rookie and casual fan?

PS, you're correct on Ali. I forgot he finished the Berbick fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Well it definitely takes the polish off in a short/ mid term perspective.
Long term? I dunno, we ain't there yet, or maybe it ain't for us to say???

But right now, I think all talk of legacy for current fighters is out of order.

---

I hear ya...and to some extent I agree. Having said that Manny Pacquiao can never stop being the first man to win four lineal crowns (for example).

I think when a fighter gets near the end, one can make some qualified, but still incomplete, asessments.

For a complete review not only does the fighter have to be retired, but all of his significant foes need to be retired as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

---

LOL, I was 26 in 1988 and remember it well. I thought at the time everyone was being an idiot. Like I said, it'd be like ranking Gamboa today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

I completely agree with you. Firstly, it's immensely arrogant of anybody to try and 'leave a legacy' ...... the whole point og having a history amongst the pantheon of greats is that you are judged after you have retired and you are judged by other people. Someone like Henry Maske taking undemanding fights against second rate fighters is much more telling than the fact he lovingly polished his record so his 'legacy' was untarnished.

Emperors, kings and statesmen leave legacies, not athletes.

Someone like Mike Tyson, for example, who was a genuinely fearsome and electrifying perfomer in his short prime would be remembered for just that - not the fact that he fell out of love for the sport, lost all discipline and direction and fought on for too long. People like Danny Williams didn't beat MIKE TYSON, they were just burgling an empty house. Doesnt affect how he will be remembered.

---

GREAT post.

If RJJ would of retired after beating John Ruiz, people would of been rating him up there with SRR. So yes i'd say he has damaged his legacy quite a fair bit.

I think fighters can damage their legacy if they lose fights near their prime. The only way to know if a fighter was in their prime is when their career is over, and you can review it retrospectively. If Jones retired after Ruiz, Tyson after Spinks, their legacy would be higher than it is now.

Fighters like Duran, Holyfield and Holmes have had great moments long after their prime which can enhance their legacy. Duran beating Barclay, Holmes beating Mercer and Holyfield nearly beating Valuev (but that one may be stretching it a bit).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

---

LOL, I was 26 in 1988 and remember it well. I thought at the time everyone was being an idiot. Like I said, it'd be like ranking Gamboa today.

---

All those boxing writers that had him 2nd only to Ali and basically the majority of people inside and outside of boxing were just been idiots. Of course back then you had him as overrarated and didn't get caught up in hype :rolleyes:

Whether you accept or believe it, your opinion of Tyson is tainted by what happened from Douglas onwards. It's like being on a jury and being asked to forget a piece of evidence, you can't do it! Back in 1988, nobody was talking about any limitations with Tyson. Whether or not his era was great he was 34-0 and had beaten all the other recognized champions (and yes I know they were only paper champs) He had beaten Biggs, Tucker, Bonecrusher, Berbwick, Tubbs, Bruno and Spinks. That is a better resume on it's own than any current active heavyweight. Infact, I don't think his era was weak in comparison to any other era except Late sixties/early seventies and early nineties.

I often wonder. If Tyson was so overrated, so floored etc etc why was their so much hype and excitement about him. He wasn't a great character like Ali and wasn't doing anything of note outside the ring. If he wasn't 'all that' why has nobody before or since every had that aura or excitement about them?

People that tell me they didn't rate Tyson 'that highly' back in the late eighties come accompanied by a very large hint of bullshit!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

---

LOL, I was 26 in 1988 and remember it well. I thought at the time everyone was being an idiot. Like I said, it'd be like ranking Gamboa today.

---

All those boxing writers that had him 2nd only to Ali and basically the majority of people inside and outside of boxing were just been idiots. Of course back then you had him as overrarated and didn't get caught up in hype :rolleyes:

Whether you accept or believe it, your opinion of Tyson is tainted by what happened from Douglas onwards. It's like being on a jury and being asked to forget a piece of evidence, you can't do it! Back in 1988, nobody was talking about any limitations with Tyson. Whether or not his era was great he was 34-0 and had beaten all the other recognized champions (and yes I know they were only paper champs) He had beaten Biggs, Tucker, Bonecrusher, Berbwick, Tubbs, Bruno and Spinks. That is a better resume on it's own than any current active heavyweight. Infact, I don't think his era was weak in comparison to any other era except Late sixties/early seventies and early nineties.

I often wonder. If Tyson was so overrated, so floored etc etc why was their so much hype and excitement about him. He wasn't a great character like Ali and wasn't doing anything of note outside the ring. If he wasn't 'all that' why has nobody before or since every had that aura or excitement about them?

People that tell me they didn't rate Tyson 'that highly' back in the late eighties come accompanied by a very large hint of bullshit!!

---

What can I tellya? Your imagination is your imagination.

I used to get into all sorts of debates on Tyson back then with people. I mean seriously, who had he steamrolled by 1988 who was more than an ordinary fighter? Only Mike Spinks. Holmes was clearly there for the paycheck.

Now did I think he had a chance to become the guy many already thought he was? Damned right. But he sure as hell wasn't that guy yet.

Did I expect him to lose to Buster? Not a chance. But I may be the one guy who's image of Tyson rose in that fight. Why? Because he showed something he hadn't before. The ability to take a beating and keep on coming trying to win. He showed desire and gumption and toughness.

Tyson WAS, and still is, a great character by the way. And exciting and great are two different traits, aren't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

---

LOL, I was 26 in 1988 and remember it well. I thought at the time everyone was being an idiot. Like I said, it'd be like ranking Gamboa today.

---

All those boxing writers that had him 2nd only to Ali and basically the majority of people inside and outside of boxing were just been idiots. Of course back then you had him as overrarated and didn't get caught up in hype :rolleyes:

Whether you accept or believe it, your opinion of Tyson is tainted by what happened from Douglas onwards. It's like being on a jury and being asked to forget a piece of evidence, you can't do it! Back in 1988, nobody was talking about any limitations with Tyson. Whether or not his era was great he was 34-0 and had beaten all the other recognized champions (and yes I know they were only paper champs) He had beaten Biggs, Tucker, Bonecrusher, Berbwick, Tubbs, Bruno and Spinks. That is a better resume on it's own than any current active heavyweight. Infact, I don't think his era was weak in comparison to any other era except Late sixties/early seventies and early nineties.

I often wonder. If Tyson was so overrated, so floored etc etc why was their so much hype and excitement about him. He wasn't a great character like Ali and wasn't doing anything of note outside the ring. If he wasn't 'all that' why has nobody before or since every had that aura or excitement about them?

People that tell me they didn't rate Tyson 'that highly' back in the late eighties come accompanied by a very large hint of bullshit!!

---

What can I tellya? Your imagination is your imagination.

I used to get into all sorts of debates on Tyson back then with people. I mean seriously, who had he steamrolled by 1988 who was more than an ordinary fighter? Only Mike Spinks. Holmes was clearly there for the paycheck.

Now did I think he had a chance to become the guy many already thought he was? Damned right. But he sure as hell wasn't that guy yet.

Did I expect him to lose to Buster? Not a chance. But I may be the one guy who's image of Tyson rose in that fight. Why? Because he showed something he hadn't before. The ability to take a beating and keep on coming trying to win. He showed desire and gumption and toughness.

Tyson WAS, and still is, a great character by the way. And exciting and great are two different traits, aren't they?

---

Fair enough - we have different opinions

Regarding Tyson's opposition. Which other fighters on your list of "The twenty heavies" fought in a better era? I'm not saying Tyson's era was great, I'm saying apart from 2 eras in history, the heavyweight division has been dominated by one person and the rest were just as good or as bad as all the other eras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

---

LOL, I was 26 in 1988 and remember it well. I thought at the time everyone was being an idiot. Like I said, it'd be like ranking Gamboa today.

---

All those boxing writers that had him 2nd only to Ali and basically the majority of people inside and outside of boxing were just been idiots. Of course back then you had him as overrarated and didn't get caught up in hype :rolleyes:

Whether you accept or believe it, your opinion of Tyson is tainted by what happened from Douglas onwards. It's like being on a jury and being asked to forget a piece of evidence, you can't do it! Back in 1988, nobody was talking about any limitations with Tyson. Whether or not his era was great he was 34-0 and had beaten all the other recognized champions (and yes I know they were only paper champs) He had beaten Biggs, Tucker, Bonecrusher, Berbwick, Tubbs, Bruno and Spinks. That is a better resume on it's own than any current active heavyweight. Infact, I don't think his era was weak in comparison to any other era except Late sixties/early seventies and early nineties.

I often wonder. If Tyson was so overrated, so floored etc etc why was their so much hype and excitement about him. He wasn't a great character like Ali and wasn't doing anything of note outside the ring. If he wasn't 'all that' why has nobody before or since every had that aura or excitement about them?

People that tell me they didn't rate Tyson 'that highly' back in the late eighties come accompanied by a very large hint of bullshit!!

---

What can I tellya? Your imagination is your imagination.

I used to get into all sorts of debates on Tyson back then with people. I mean seriously, who had he steamrolled by 1988 who was more than an ordinary fighter? Only Mike Spinks. Holmes was clearly there for the paycheck.

Now did I think he had a chance to become the guy many already thought he was? Damned right. But he sure as hell wasn't that guy yet.

Did I expect him to lose to Buster? Not a chance. But I may be the one guy who's image of Tyson rose in that fight. Why? Because he showed something he hadn't before. The ability to take a beating and keep on coming trying to win. He showed desire and gumption and toughness.

Tyson WAS, and still is, a great character by the way. And exciting and great are two different traits, aren't they?

---

Fair enough - we have different opinions

Regarding Tyson's opposition. Which other fighters on your list of "The twenty heavies" fought in a better era? I'm not saying Tyson's era was great, I'm saying apart from 2 eras in history, the heavyweight division has been dominated by one person and the rest were just as good or as bad as all the other eras.

---

Here's how I think about the heavy eras (for today anyway)

1970's-best ever
1901-1910-Incredible, though the top black guys got hosed by the top white guys and by Jack Johnson
1990's-really freaking good!

Post Tunney-Pre Louis-Blech
Mid-late 1950's-Double blech
Now-Triple blech

All the others are sort of a mishmash as near as I can figure with high spots and low spots that belong between the two groups above. I DO think the WWII years had a chance to be special, but of course the war intervened.

I am happy to be corrected here by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I don't think it happens.

Allow me to explain. I often read that, for example, Roy Jones or Evander Holyfield or James Toney are "damaging their legacies" by continuing when they are only a shadow of their championship selves or by participating in MMA.

While I agree those situations are sad and I wish weren't ongoing, are they really going to affect how we think about a fighter over time? I think time tends to give perspective on things like this.

Joe Louis got drilled by Rocky Marciano and ended his days in the ring by wrestling.
Jack Johnson fought on into his mid forties and lost five of his last seven fights, three by knockout.
Muhammad Ali lost his last two fights by KO and three of his last four, the third to a man with seven (?) pro fights.
Sam Langford fought five years with eyes almost gone and sufferred 90% of his losses in those years.
After fighting Marciano, Ezzard Charles had 15 of his 25 career losses and was a .500 guy.


There are of course many more examples of extraordinary fighters with terrible endings. Yet we look back at these men as giants in the sport. Properly so I think.

I suspect we will look back in five years and agree Roy Jones stopped being Roy Jones in the second Tarver fight, that James Toney stopped being James Toney after Evander Holyfield and Evander stopped being Evander maybe that same night. Or maybe a little earlier and that little that happened after that matters in term's of history's judgement.

My own view is these three men could get KO'd ten straight times by a Girl Scout Troop and it wouldn't change who these men were or the way we regard them as fighters.

Am I nuts?

---

Whre did you rank Tyson as an all time heavy back in 88? Do you still rate him in the same place?

---

I didn't place him among the greatest back then or now. Judging Tyson in 1988 would have made about as much sense as judging Gamboa now.

---

You obviously don't remember 1988 or that period. EVERYBODY was ranking Tyson's all time position at that point!

---

LOL, I was 26 in 1988 and remember it well. I thought at the time everyone was being an idiot. Like I said, it'd be like ranking Gamboa today.

---

All those boxing writers that had him 2nd only to Ali and basically the majority of people inside and outside of boxing were just been idiots. Of course back then you had him as overrarated and didn't get caught up in hype :rolleyes:

Whether you accept or believe it, your opinion of Tyson is tainted by what happened from Douglas onwards. It's like being on a jury and being asked to forget a piece of evidence, you can't do it! Back in 1988, nobody was talking about any limitations with Tyson. Whether or not his era was great he was 34-0 and had beaten all the other recognized champions (and yes I know they were only paper champs) He had beaten Biggs, Tucker, Bonecrusher, Berbwick, Tubbs, Bruno and Spinks. That is a better resume on it's own than any current active heavyweight. Infact, I don't think his era was weak in comparison to any other era except Late sixties/early seventies and early nineties.

I often wonder. If Tyson was so overrated, so floored etc etc why was their so much hype and excitement about him. He wasn't a great character like Ali and wasn't doing anything of note outside the ring. If he wasn't 'all that' why has nobody before or since every had that aura or excitement about them?

People that tell me they didn't rate Tyson 'that highly' back in the late eighties come accompanied by a very large hint of bullshit!!

---

Lots of people that knew their boxing didn't rate Tyson up there with ATG HWs like ALi and Louis even after he beat SPinks because at that time it was viewed as too early. A lot of people said he was a very good fighter just not up there with the HW greats because it's too early. My dad was one of them that knew his boxing, he said let's wait how his career unfolds before making proclamations that he's just as good or better than guys like Louis and Ali. And he was right.

And not every boxing expert proclaimed Tyson was some atg badass after the Spinks fight.