This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected __________________
I'm surprised you reposted this after the reception you got in the other thread. As I said, Rocky Marciano. Explain why he wasn't a 'true' champion.
makes no sence what so ever a champion is a champion because hes a winner you can have losses but that dosent make you a better champion than an undefeated champion this realy is ******ed
However if you have fought everybody and are still undefeated? Facing adversity doesnt mean you have to lose. Fighting with a broken hand, winning despite being outmatched physically, dealing with bad cuts or other injuries. Those things show championship qualities. Its why, when you see manny pacquiao taking an ass kicking from EM but not having his will broken that you realise he is a true champion. Or when you see floyd relying on one hand to get the job done or making adjustments to defeat larger, faster or stronger opponents. An undefeated record is ideal but it doesnt stop someone becoming a great champion.
Okay I can see the point but IMO losing + bouncing back is not a determing factor of a 'true' champion... it could help but isn't that necessary I guess. Wlad KO'd Brewster in a rematch and still not regarded as a true Champion for example... B-Hop was considered by many a great champion, and he only avanged 1 loss, which was meaningless against a declining Jones...
What if Lewis had gotten up from those KDs against McCall and Rahman and gone on to beat them? Had he done that, he would've retired undefeated, and by your logic would not have been a true champion. Do you really think this line of reasoning makes sense?
What if a fighter's only loss is a DQ loss where they were clearly dominating the fight? Are they true champions?