Should loses matter at all, or is greatness simply about who you beat?

Maybe I am in the minority, but I do not think that loses should be held against a fighter, when it comes to his greatness; It should be soley about his wins. Almost all of the greats have lost to lesser fighters in their careers, but it is who they beat, and how, that matters. Ezzard Charles had 25 loses, for example, but he was p4p one of the best, with wins over some of the best fighters to ever grace the ring. The fact that he lost to a couple relative unknowns along the way, and late in his career, should hurt his legacy AT ALL in my opinion.

 

Losses outside of one's prime should not count, especially if they were vs top level fighters. Many of Charles losses happened when he was outside of his prime 1955-1959

The rest of the losses should matter.

 

All factors should always be considered. Wins, losses, records, titles held, ratings, names of opponents, amateur accomplishments, etc.. Everyone has their own criteria, but I like to look at the whole picture. If wins were the only thing that counted, and losses were ignored then you'd have men like Buster Douglas outranking guys like Larry Holmes.

 

Losses should obviously be included. However I think the prime version of the fighter is the one that should be scrutinized the most. and what they did during that period of time.

 

Yeah, I agree, losses IN THEIR PRIME need to be considered.
Of course, some people make the excuse for that a fighter was "past prime" or "pre prime" or something to dismiss inconvenient losses.
Obvious example, Tyson got knocked out by Douglas in his prime and millions of fans cannot accept that, so he becomes outside his prime for that one.

 

Yeah, and in case we weren't paying attention Lewis showed us some more by getting starched good and proper by Rahman.

 

They matter, but wins matter a lot more. If that makes sense. You can't take away a win over a great fighter if they were in their prime. No matter how many losses they accumulate.

 

There are also many fans and media who put perceived skills higher than resume on the rating criteria rubric.

They've lost their minds IMO, but hey those people exist.

 

True. Brian Neilson retired with a better looking record than most, but I doubt many will remember him years down the road.

 

Kinda a weird premise to make... If losses don't matter.. then how are wins even remotely as important? Who you win and loss to determines the strength of your resume and accomplishments... If losses don't matter then overall perspective is lost when deciding how significant a win is. Duran beating SRL was important because SRL hadn't lost yet just as much as it was who SRL had beaten at that point.

 

Bit of both, depends what company your boxing in.

 

Great thread it's all about were the loses in prime, was the fighter in 100% fighting shape, was there any foul play in the fight and were they avenged.