Agree or Disagree: A fighter cannot be great until he tastes defeat.

Disagree. Is Marciano a great in your mind?

 

I disagree, I don't see why a fighter has to lose to be great. If Mayweather stays retired he would still be great.

 

Well put it this way. If a fighter is undefeated..then he hasnt faced the best. Thats pretty much the law of the fight game.

 

I respect a fighter more when they taste defeat and come back stronger e.g. David Haye.

 

Co-sign

 

Me too ala Lewis/Rahman II

 

Disagree.

BUT - he has to challenge himself to fights where he is widely expected to lose. If that involves moving up in weight, so be it (although that isn't mandatory)

 

It's differnt in every case.Usually it's hard to stay undefeated if you face the best.

 

It helps most fighters.

A tough fight has a similar effect. Mayweather must have felt dissapointment after Castillo I and it was probably the same for Marciano after the first LaStarza fight. Both of these fighters went away after a bad night and came back and made sure it never happened again.

 

:thumbsup

 

Hopkins lost his first pro fight, and lost his first bid for a world title.

Arguello suffered a loss long before he ever smelled a title, lost to Marcel in his first attempt to get one, and then lost his first fight at 135.

Hearns lost two fights to Iran freaking Barkley of all people.

Haglar lost a fight before he ever got near a title shot, and then only scored a draw in his first title shot, and that against a fairly weak champion.

A fighters greatness certainly does not depend on an undefeated record, but no one in their right mind would argue that losing is better than winning.

 

a fighter cannot be great without fighting great opponents or taking on great challenges.

 

I think an avenged loss does more for a fighter's credibility than a spotless record. Undefeated fighters can always be accused of only ever facing light competition. Marciano, Mayweather, and Calzaghe are the first three who come to mind who are undefeated, and we see that all three face accusations of ducking the tough fights. Maybe Marciano is often given a pass due to the sheer lack of tough competition in his day, but he is even criticized for that. Obviously, winning is better, and if a fighter legitimately cleans out his division and truly dominates and beats all contenders, then there is no reason not to consider him great because he was never beaten. That'd be silly. But it is tough to fight EVERY contender and I imagine no matter how dominant an undefeated fighter was, there would always be someone somewhere who says he ducked X fighter and therefore is not a true great.