Relevancy of late career wins and losses

[MCS]

Elite guys who fought too long and get an ugly record because of losing when old. Prime examples: Ken Shamrock and BJ Penn. Somewhat Anderson and Chuck. Those late losses don't matter. Lost their level. Should be judged by how they were in their prime.

Or late career wins, which I'd say are actually better than peak career wins. Old guys scoring upsets. Like Randy vs Sylvia and Gonzaga. DC vs Stipe 1, as DC has more mileage as well. Edgar's first win vs Cub. Hendo going on a 4-fight run at age 40 against Babalu, Feijao, Fedor and the epic vs Shogun.

While veterans facing each other late in their careers doesn't mean as much as a top win when at their best, but Frankie beating Faber was one of those old former champ pairings where the level was fairly equal, so the win/loss matters again.

 

[Leinster Rugby]

Don't really disagree with any of this.

That said I'm in favour of anything that reduces the number of "prime x destroys y" threads and posts on here.

 

[MCS]

Don't really disagree with any of this.

That said I'm in favour of anything that reduces the number of "prime x destroys y" threads and posts on here.

They sometimes have a point, like it's possible, but usually to just hype yer aging fav fighter.

 

[faustian]

Pretty much in agreement TS. Regarding post-prime fights, I generally ignore Ls and credit Ws, bonus points if the W is vs a legit ranked opponent

Imo a fighter’s legacy should only stand to gain from fighting past his prime. But you’ll always have new fans shitting on great fighters who take Ls in their twilight years, only for it to inevitably happen to their favorite fighters

 

[GOATtalks]

Pretty much in agreement TS. Regarding post-prime fights, I generally ignore Ls and credit Ws, bonus points if the W is vs a legit ranked opponent

Imo a fighter’s legacy should only stand to gain from fighting past his prime. But you’ll always have new fans shitting on great fighters who take Ls in their twilight years, only for it to inevitably happen to their favorite fighters

It makes no sense at all. Credit wins and ignore loses? Like wtf? You either ignore both or you count both.

 

[OliverAtom]

That's always been the case i thought. Muhammad Ali lost to Sphinks, Holmes and Trevor Berbick. I promise you most guys reading this post never even heard of those names but sure as hell they know who Ali is even if they're not hardcore boxing fans. True greatness cannot be measured or contained by statistics alone.

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

Elite guys who fought too long and get an ugly record because of losing when old. Prime examples: Ken Shamrock and BJ Penn. Somewhat Anderson and Chuck. Those late losses don't matter. Lost their level. Should be judged by how they were in their prime.

Or late career wins, which I'd say are actually better than peak career wins. Old guys scoring upsets. Like Randy vs Sylvia and Gonzaga. DC vs Stipe 1, as DC has more mileage as well. Edgar's first win vs Cub. Hendo going on a 4-fight run at age 40 against Babalu, Feijao, Fedor and the epic vs Shogun.

While veterans facing each other late in their careers doesn't mean as much as a top win when at their best, but Frankie beating Faber was one of those old former champ pairings where the level was fairly equal, so the win/loss matters again.

It doesn't take away from how great they were in their prime but a guy like BJ, his legacy has been severely tarnished. That was before he got knocked out in the street.

 

[MCS]

It doesn't take away from how great they were in their prime but a guy like BJ, his legacy has been severely tarnished. That was before he got knocked out in the street.

Should it be?

 

[MCS]

It makes no sense at all. Credit wins and ignore loses? Like wtf? You either ignore both or you count both.

Because old, past their prime veterans aren't supposed to win. It's usually a upset if they do. While expected if they lose.

Or in layman's terms - it's why the old guy gets cheered on in Gladiator movies.

 

[r-harper-1]

It makes no sense at all. Credit wins and ignore loses? Like wtf? You either ignore both or you count both.

It makes perfect sense imo .....If a fighter is clearly passed his best ....but can still pull out a win it’s a positive....but if a fighter is clearly past his best and loses it doesn’t hurt him much at all imo

 

[Bowel-forged Stool]

It kind of reminds me of “The Big Show.” He’d be fed to guys to hype them up all the time, but every now and again he’d get a good win and he’d be just as good as ever