Should close defeats count towards legacy/greatness???

Interesting....But I've always regarded Duran's defeat to Hagler as one of his better performances....No mean feat to lose by a round to the great Hagler...

However fighters are best remembered for their victories....But should close defeats or draws count towards greatness???

I think most people do especially when they're coming up weights to take on the elite fighters of that weight division.

If they're a heavy underdog then potentially yes much like Nelson gets a lot of credit for his losing effort to Sanchez

Depends on who to. Duran vs Hagler is a great example, as is Hearns vs Hagler. Kudos for fighting the best around must be given.

Don't think Azumah gets much credit these days...forgotten man....

However when debating Duran..Hagler's name never seems to come up in rebuttal to the rolled like a drunk stuff..

If Nelson is mentioned then the Sanchez fight is normally foremost in peoples minds would you not agree

Problem I have with Duran/Hagler is the passive manner in which Hagler fought, he seemed to give far too much respect to Duran when he probably should have stepped it up and closed the show early

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If they're a heavy underdog then potentially yes much like Nelson gets a lot of credit for his losing effort to Sanchez

Pretty much, yeah. Conversely if a heavy favourite loses a close decision, that's not so good. Thinking about things though, even close defeats aren't always so 'close', and vice versa. If a guy loses every round but they're very close rounds, that's very misleading on paper.

I'll be honest and say when most of these writers define greatness or rate fighters they don't take into account defeats haowever valiant.....

Graham lost a split to Mccallum.....no one holds that up as a reason to think him quality.....it's more of a negative...mccallum was great and won in higher divisions

JMM is in most people's top five p4p based largely on a draw and a loss.

Disagree......He's got a pedigree, a stellar career and there are not many top draw fighters left out there..

You're short changing him.

I think they can count towards legacy and greatness in certain circumstances; usually, if they are past their best, fighting someone in or around theirs and are giving away significant ground in other departments.

For instance, if Hopkins, for some bizarre reason, decided to follow through with his Heavyweight plan in 2012 and, at the age of 47, gave a good account of himself against Wladimir while keeping the scores fairly close but losing on points, it adds to his legacy without question.

Duran-Hagler is a very good example, considering that this was no ordinary 160 lb man that the slightly over the hill Duran was facing.

Louis went the distance with the quality Charles Chris when half dead...but it's not used as a plus point towards legacy...

I believe some defeats should count I just think though greats are remembered for their wins and not their noble efforts which get disregarded..

They can contribute to a legacy, but often and somewhat unfairly, they don't. Look at Fenech, taking on the aforementioned Nelson, a naturally bigger man, for a fourth world title, and getting a draw which clearly short-changed him. The return, soundly won by Nelson is always what seems to be remembered and Nelson has much the greater legacy. Zoomy gains far more kudos for his loss to Sanchez.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis went the distance with the quality Charles Chris when half dead...but it's not used as a plus point towards legacy...

I believe some defeats should count I just think though greats are remembered for their wins and not their noble efforts which get disregarded..

In fairness, though, Louis wasn't facing as many disadvantages against Charles as Duran was against Hagler. Charles was essentially still the smaller man, and had really left his best days and form back at 175 lb. It's not as if Louis was fighting out of his best weight division.

As I say, it does tend to need a real stretch of particular circumstances, but now and then you do get the odd example of a defeat which can enhance a legacy, even if it is only by a small amount.

A large proportion of Glen Johnson's reputation rests on how hard he pushed very good fighters whilst losing umpteen of those fights.

Fenech had a great career and has been shortchanged you're right there..

I had him winning the first fight by a fair margin..

Probably because he lost so one sidedly people might have thought he got a soft Nelson that night...

Unfairly..

Bob wrote:A large proportion of Glen Johnson's reputation rests on how hard he pushed very good fighters whilst losing umpteen of those fights.

That's a good point. He's lost something like 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 of all his fights, and on paper that statistic gives a very distorted picture.

Yes but Johnson isn't great because of his near misses...he isn't great at all..

Which is why he is forgotten like Harold Brazier who came up short on many an occasion.

It depends on the context.

For example Armstrong getting a draw against Caferino Garcia (that many thought he won) is commendable, as he'd already done enough to cement himself as the ATG champion weight hopper.

On the other hand I see De La Hoya giving away the last rounds against Trinidad rather than win and remove all doubt as the difference between him being very, very good and great.

I think Hopkins' close defeat to Calzaghe propels him to ATG status. Until then he only had big wins against blown up welters and actors.

Of course he did

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yes but Johnson isn't great because of his near misses...he isn't great at all..

Which is why he is forgotten like Harold Brazier who came up short on many an occasion.

No, he's not a great but what I meant was that his record when written simply as wins-losses doesn't give the whole picture, and the same can be said of others. As has been said; it's the nature of the opponent as well as the nature of the loss.

If the performance warrants it, then definately. Frazier's contribution to the thriller in Manila is nailed on example-I challange anyone that actually has a decent knowledge of boxing to argue that his performance was not beyond the call of duty and a far greater achievement than many others wins. More contraversalyl, I rate Leonards loss to Duran as perhaps his finest hour- I have never bought the arguement that Duran forced Leonard to fight his fight, I believe that he made a choice to try and out brawl boxings finest brawler, and came within a whisker of pulling it off, great ,great performance regardless of the decision. I can also think of cases where loses have enhanced legacy when perhaps they shouldn't- LaMotta's loses to Robinson for example, 1-5 to Robbo, including one absolute thrashing, yet this series of fights are seen by many as his defining fights, and amazingly makes some peoples top ten middle weights