Legacy busters

A fighter's legacy is made up of all of their fights, highs and lows, achievements and disappointments. A fighter's legacy can be enhanced by one magnificent win but it can also be tarnished by a loss or poor performance. What single fight had the biggest negative impact on a great fighter's legacy? I'm looking for great fighters here who's record is tainted by a loss or sub par showing. Where they had a great career but one result is widely remembered or leads to questions being asked about their overall legacy. So for example Jeff Lacey was humiliated and exposed by Calzaghe but he didn't have much of a legacy to start with so this would be a bad example.

The one that immediately stands out to me is Duran and the No Mas fight. Great fighter with great achievements but this fight is what a lot of people think about when you mention his name. Luckily his legacy is so great that it doesn't dent it too much overall but it affects how he is remembered. What other fights are there that you can think of that had a big negative effect on a great fighter's legacy?

I think Hearns-Duran was more detrimental..........Humiliating hammering and made to look a novice.....

Think Spinks-Tyson is a good example of what you're talking about...

Spinks was a top 3 light heavy in most opinions and the first reigning 175er to win he big one...

However the way he lost to Tyson makes a certain section forget how good he was...............

Pongsaklek Wonjongkam was making a case for being one of the great small men of all time then came along Sonny Boy Jaro and the upset of the year so far.

Not a loss, but the very fact that Larry Holmes got in the ring with Butterbean detracts massively for me.

Would probably have to put forward Tyson vs Douglas, as exceptional as Buster was that night Mike really had no business losing to him. Think this has led to the view in many quarters that Mike was an easy mark if someone was not intimidated, not a view I personally agree with

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think Hearns-Duran was more detrimental..........Humiliating hammering and made to look a novice.....

Think Spinks-Tyson is a good example of what you're talking about...

Spinks was a top 3 light heavy in most opinions and the first reigning 175er to win he big one...

However the way he lost to Tyson makes a certain section forget how good he was...............

I won't dwell on the Hearns - Duran example too much as we all no where that will lead. I don't think it was a shock that Duran lost but perhaps the manner in which he did was.

Spinks and Tyson is a good example. Was on another forum where someone was arguing that all fighters today are better than those from the past and that the likes of Spinks would be average. His main argument was that Tyson had annihilated Spinks. I don't think the guy knew how to count to 175 let alone have any knowledge of or interest in Spink's career at light heavy.

paperbag_puncher wrote: Was on another forum where someone was arguing that all fighters today are better than those from the past and that the likes of Spinks would be average. His main argument was that Tyson had annihilated Spinks. I don't think the guy knew how to count to 175 let alone have any knowledge of or interest in Spink's career at light heavy.

On the plus side though it is nice to know Az gets to spend time on forums other than this one.

rowley wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote: Was on another forum where someone was arguing that all fighters today are better than those from the past and that the likes of Spinks would be average. His main argument was that Tyson had annihilated Spinks. I don't think the guy knew how to count to 175 let alone have any knowledge of or interest in Spink's career at light heavy.

On the plus side though it is nice to know Az gets to spend time on forums other than this one.

Indeed. I thought Spinks had been around in the 1880s and not the 1980s the way they were going on. You wouldn't want to hear what they say about the likes of Jeffries or Langford. I think you might cry...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think Hearns-Duran was more detrimental..........Humiliating hammering and made to look a novice.

Find me any career Lightweight in history who'd have stood any kind of chance against Tommy at 154 lb and maybe I'll agree, Truss. Duran rightfully gets a kicking for 'No Mas' and the embarrassing performances against Laing, Batten and Sims, but I won't have it that the Hearns hammering should detract from his legacy, because it simply doesn't.

Back to the original question, Spinks is a good shout. From these shores, Hamed is the outstnding candidate in recent years. Amongst the casual fan or average man on the street, the idea that Hamed was a fraud and paper champion who simply worked his way through a load of 'bums' before being embarrassed by the one and only decent fighter he ever faced is commonplace, all thanks to Mr. Barrera. Not true at all, of course, but the fact that there are only three Brits you could unequivocally put ahead of him since WWII does seem lost on some people thanks to that defeat.

Forrest beating Mosley. This was supposed to be a routine defence for Mosley who was considered a man on his way to becoming a modern day great. Then Forrest beat him convincingly twice.

Haye v Klitschko - Had a very good career at cruiserweight, talked himself up to be the saviour of the heavyweight division then put in a no show against Wlad.

Good shout again, SRR. Mosley had been one hell of a Lightweight, and when he ousted Oscar for the first time at 147 lb, expectations really had reached fever pitch! Quite a few people were even nudging Jones down from the top spot in the pound for pound race to make way for Shane.

In fairness, though, Forrest was no patsy. Have to confess, I've never seen their second bout (my understanding is that Mosley closed the gap from their first outing but that there was still no doubt that Forrest was the better man?), but his performance first time out was superb. Shane did very, very well to even survive that second round.

Excellent performance by Forrest, and it seemingly took Shane quite a while to get over having his aura of invincibility smashed like that.

@two_tone

Very good cruiserweight career?

He has an over the hill Mormeck and a never that good Maccaranelli and Fragomeni on his record and not much else.

I've said it once and I'll say it again he's no Johnny nelson.

rowley wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote: Was on another forum where someone was arguing that all fighters today are better than those from the past and that the likes of Spinks would be average. His main argument was that Tyson had annihilated Spinks. I don't think the guy knew how to count to 175 let alone have any knowledge of or interest in Spink's career at light heavy.

On the plus side though it is nice to know Az gets to spend time on forums other than this one.

RJJ getting sparked by all and sundry leads to many (detractors) claiming he always had a glass jaw.

88Chris05 wrote:Good shout again, SRR. Mosley had been one hell of a Lightweight, and when he ousted Oscar for the first time at 147 lb, expectations really had reached fever pitch! Quite a few people were even nudging Jones down from the top spot in the pound for pound race to make way for Shane.

In fairness, though, Forrest was no patsy. Have to confess, I've never seen their second bout (my understanding is that Mosley closed the gap from their first outing but that there was still no doubt that Forrest was the better man?), but his performance first time out was superb. Shane did very, very well to even survive that second round.

Excellent performance by Forrest, and it seemingly took Shane quite a while to get over having his aura of invincibility smashed like that.

Forrest was no walkover but like you said some people were talking about nudging Jones down a place in the P4P stakes for Shane so that shows how big a shock it was. The second time round Mosley did slightly better but Forrest was fantastic again.

Forrest was a frustrating fighter. One of those guys who could perform like he did against Mosley in back to back fights then get stopped by Mayorga in 3 or 4 rounds. In fact did he not lose back to back fights with Mayorga after the Mosley fights?

The first Mayorga fight was a little crazy, wasn't it? Shades of Hearns-Barkley in more ways than one. From what I remember, Forrest was comfortably on top before getting careless in that bout; he got caught and just seemed surprised more than anything else. Could perhaps argue that he could have gone on, but he can't have any real complaints.

No idea at all how he somehow managed to get himself outboxed by Mayorga next time out, though. The decision with which he scraped by a past his best Quartey can only be described as, at best, questionable as well. I had Ike a good three points up in that one.

Chris when Mcguigan was arguing with Reg Gutteridge about Duran's position in history...Gutteridge neglected the no mas and went to the Hearns hammering as a reason why he shouldn't be top 5.......

Agree with you about career lightweights.. but nice smokescreening!!!!

My problem is with the pathetic way he was hammered...not the defeat!!

as you know!!!!!!!!

I have to say Honeyghans spanking of Curry has kept him out of the HOF. Looking at the fight, Curry who was P4P 1 taking a beating like that was humiliating! Just imagine if that happened to Floyd!

If you agree that no career Lightweight would have any realistic chance against a 154 lb Tommy, then why does the way in which Duran was hammered bother you so much? Surely such an admission means that the outcome would be par for the course, regardless of whether it was Duran, Benny or Mosley being executed?

Don't see how the Hearns thrashing can be more damaging to Duran's legacy than 'No Mas', personally. Duran, of course, was still north of his best weight when Leonard II took place, but it was at his new home of 147 lb that he'd achieved the absolute summit of his career just five months before. On the contrast, Duran's form prior to Hearns had been a little patchy; lethargic against Benitez, Laing and Batten, very good against Moore and Hagler. Not to mention that, in Hearns, he was facing a man who'd go on to be a capable Light-Heavyweight titlist. The only legacy at risk in that fight was Hearns', had he failed to do away with Duran. In short, Duran has valid excuses for being "rolled" by Tommy, but he has none for waving the white flag against Leonard.

The problem with 'No Mas' is that it begs the question; what if Duran had been forced in to a fight with a Whitaker, Pep or Benitez type of fighter in his Lightweight pomp? And sure enough, there are people who claim that he'd have always imploded against a slippery, slick fighter who could frustrate him, regardless of weight, preparation for the fight etc.

I don't agree with that at all, personally, but Roberto did give the aforementioned doubters some ammunition, unfortunately.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:I have to say Honeyghans spanking of Curry has kept him out of the HOF. Looking at the fight, Curry who was P4P 1 taking a beating like that was humiliating! Just imagine if that happened to Floyd!

Nice

High Profile I would say Hatton's legacy is hugely tainted by the manner of his loss to Paquaio. If his loss to Mayweather was his only defeat it probably wouldn't have affected his legacy at all as he fought bravely for 10 rounds. To lose to Manny in such a rapid and brutal fashion was devavstating to his legacy in my view.

Honey's cut stoppage has probably kept him out you're right!!

Tyson losing in his pomp to Douglas - smashed the myth that he was invincible and left me doubting if he ever really was the baddest man on the planet. Would have helped had he been able to rematch him.


The manner of hattons loss to Pac too, because he became a poster boy for a bad KO

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Honey's cut stoppage has probably kept him out you're right!!

I thought he quit on his stool like a sissy. I would rather go out on my shield then quit.

I know we all think of Truss as a big old bear, but can we stop baiting him please.

Union Cane wrote:I know we all think of Truss as a big old bear, but can we stop baiting him please.

You would say that right after I been to the market to fetch some mackrel.

I don't hold Douglas against Tyson so much as bruno showed that he was on the slide....most probably because of career direction....

His handlers, Jay Bright etc, lost the control that Rooney had over him and he forgot the fundamentals...that got him to the top..

Ko magazine had a great article saying Bruno has showed that Tyson is vincible!!

Never a truer word said.....

Douglas was an accident waiting to happen..........

He quit on his stool like a sissy now go away.......

I guess Lennox has two legacy busters on his record - McCall and Rahman. The McCall loss is perhaps forgiveable as it came prior to the peak Steward years and McCall took advantage of a flaw in Lewis' style that had bee allowed to go unattended. However, the loss to Rahman is simply inexcusable and gives Lewis' detractors plenty of ammunition.

Why is the Rahman loss inexcusable???/

he got caught by a big punch from out of nowhere........

He did more than make up for it........by outclassing him in the rematch..

For me I think Mccall was worse.....he basically unlocked a defensively inept Lewis and then in the rematch had a complete collapse and so no real revenge was taken!!

superflyweight wrote:I guess Lennox has two legacy busters on his record - McCall and Rahman. The McCall loss is perhaps forgiveable as it came prior to the peak Steward years and McCall took advantage of a flaw in Lewis' style that had bee allowed to go unattended. However, the loss to Rahman is simply inexcusable and gives Lewis' detractors plenty of ammunition.

I would argue Lewis' 4th round rematch riposte pretty much dealt with that issue. Lennox's legacy only grew late on in his career in terms of acknowledgement of what a great fighter he was. Don't think either really diminished his legacy, but rather served to place him appropriately in the grand scheme of things.

Insofar as both losses are routinely counted against Lewis when viewing his career - I would think they are pretty clear legacy busters. Take them away and any arguments against him being ina heavyweight top 10 pretty much disappear (albeit I have in the top 10 notwithstanding those losses).

Truss - the Rahman loss was quite simply down to a lack of preparation. The ease of his win in the rematch shows that he simply had no business losing to Rahman in the first place. Yes, there are excuses which can be made, but they're not really acceptable for a professional sportsman.

As for the McCall loss, Lennox had very little legacy to speak of at that point and had yet to reach his peak years.

I thought this thread was a retrospective one..........

A fighter's legacy is defined after he's finished.........For me MCcall is a bigger defeat legacy wise than Rahman........as he never really avenged it..

But I appreciate your points.......

n. pl. leg·a·cies
1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will.
2. Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of religious freedom. See Synonyms at heritage.

When I were a kid, the word "record" sufficed. Indeed it is the only appropriate word to describe within the context of the earthy world of pugilism.It's not as if I ever benefited from Lennox Lewis' fights (even though I was a fan) so who is the beneficiary of his legacy?

andygf wrote:n. pl. leg·a·cies
1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will.
2. Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of religious freedom. See Synonyms at heritage.

When I were a kid, the word "record" sufficed. Indeed it is the only appropriate word to describe within the context of the earthy world of pugilism.It's not as if I ever benefited from Lennox Lewis' fights (even though I was a fan) so who is the beneficiary of his legacy?

Do you feel better now?

Sonny Liston's legacy is hurt by his losses to Ali. unfortunate for him that Ali went on to be the sportsman of all time, most casual fans just see him getting t'umped up by The Greatest and nothing more.

Sonny Liston had no legacy, he was skint when he died.Hell of a record, mind you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: He quit on his stool like a sissy now go away.......

Didums.......just like like Duran was 'rolled like a drunk' against Hearns.

Dont give it if you can't take it beefster!

Regarding McCall, that second fight was weird. It will go down as a Win for Lewis although slightly tarnished due to McCall's mental breakdown in the ring.

Lewis was still a little bit too cautious but he could have thought McCall was playing possum??

andygf wrote:Sonny Liston had no legacy, he was skint when he died.Hell of a record, mind you.

Krect. But he might not have been skins if he beat Ali.