How Much Does a Loss Take Away From a Fighters Greatness?

Just something I've been thinking about and wanted to get others' perspectives on, since it seems like people here have very different views on how much losses take away from a fighter's greatness.

Some count any and all losses against a fighter, while others only factor in 'bad' losses or disregard losses that happened before the fighter was in their prime. Personally, I think I’m one of the few who doesn’t factor losses into how I evaluate fighters at all.

But I’m curious—how do you all see it? How much should losses impact a fighter’s legacy

 

Marciano would have found a way. He always did.

 

Who'd they lose to? What are the circumstances? There really is no catch-all answer here.

 

It really shouldn't matter if a fighter has 50 losses, on paper.

Context is everything, doubly so in a sport with as much nuance as boxing.

 

Do you think its okay not to take into account losses when considering fighters greatness?

 

I find things to enjoy & focos on within the ring that aren't boring statistics.

 

My philosophy - for a long time - has been that losses should either be completely disregarded, or even add to fighter's legacy, depending on circumstances.
Would anyone say that Jose Luis Castillo would be greater if He did not fight Diego Corrales first time around and instead took a longer lay-off, with rest of his career resuming as it followed? Diego was the winner that night, so He has to be awarded accordingly - but does all the credit from that fight belong to him only, because He found that right hand when Castillo rushed him? It never made sense to me.

Recently, in other topic:
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/alexis-arguello-where-p4p.728397

... @Saintpat made some good arguments in the other direction, though:

There is truth in that as well. If We disregard losses completely, it can lead to some fallacies - where a fighter who gets the job done at first attempt is going to be given less credit than a fighter who slips up and needs a second try to show his superiority over an opponent. The opponent - who now has a win over great fighter - is also going to elevate his standing, so the champion might get more credit for avanging the loss than He would've gotten if He just got the job done first time around.

So it is a bit tricky.

 

I agree with most on here that context is key. I've noticed that often, the manner in which a fighter is defeated is important in this regard.

For example, Lennox Lewis who is an all-time great, catches about the most criticism I've ever seen for somebody with only two losses. I think the fact that he was one punch KO'd each time is the main reason why his detractors get down on him so much for it, even though he came back and Avenged both losses in dramatic fashion.

 

That is a fact long live the king.

 

49-0 everything else is cope.

 

Well it depends on a bit all the context of a bout and the fan lol.

 

Sometimes losses add to a legacy.

Pastoral prime losses mean nothing to me though.

 

I'd say actually his losses have added to his legacy.

 

You have to take them within their own individual context, but I don't understand how you could accurately evaluate a fighter if you don't take their losses into account?

Generally, as long as you don't have an agenda against a fighter, just apply some common sense. Most early career and obviously past prime losses don't matter much, if at all, but there's often still something to learn depending on the context.