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

Judging by his fight against Lazcano, apparently Hatton has gotten worst after losing to Mayweather. Yes he won the fight but was very unimpressive in doing so and was in fact hurt twice in the fight. Another example and prabably a better one is Roy Jones. His first loss technically was against Griffin but he was hardly a defeated fighter in that fight. After his loss to Tarvar he just wasn't the same.

 

actually the Lazcano fight was a one-off. It was obvious. If Hatton were to rematch Lazcano today he would knock him out in 4.

Look at what he did to Malignaggi. At btw i am not just saying this in hindsight. I (and a few other people) said right after the Lazcano fight that even though he looked like **** he is not as bad as he looked in that fight and it was just a tune-up.

 

If Tyson had retired after icing Spinks, would we then be able to say that he hadn't faced the best.

 

I agree and disagree...If a fighter were to be immaculate in skill, toughness, speed, agility, defense and power...and to answer all questions and doubts about his skill...and does so with an undefeated record...then it's without a doubt that he is THE BEST!

Since no such fighter exists...I think losses come as a chapter in EVERY great fighters career and legacy...and what they do AFTER the loss...is what seperates champions from contenders

"Those who avoid pain will not understand glory. Those who avoid pain will not understand love."

There is still glory and victory to be found in a fight...even when your arm is not raised...those...are TRULY the greatest fighters in the game.

 

Silly statement soon as you start pointing out that Marciano and Mayweather are or will be greats then the statement falls apart.

Winning > losing.

 

Consider the possibility of head trauma and other illnesses that can result from getting your bell rung in the ring. If a fighter can retire undefeated, rich, and healthy, isn't that the better choice than getting the glory for fighting the tough fights but barely being able to string a sentence together years later? If being "a great" is the consolation prize for getting your head ****ed up, I'd leave it.

 

You have made the great distinction between a warrior and a fighter...

Fans will forever love and come to admire the warrior...

 

:good

 

Well yea, but the fans can still talk straight after it's all over. I'm not saying the warriors should not get their due, I am just saying that those who might be accused of avoiding tough challenges to keep their records perfect should still get some credit.

 

And that it is understandable as to why they would do so.

 

The operative word there is some...and they do...they get SOME credit...

But the GREATEST get FULL credit...even in a loss

 

Well credit from boxing fans ain't what it used to be, obviously, since all the warriors get blasted mercilessly for hanging on past their primes. I wouldn't hold it against a fighter for not wanting to hang on too long, or for retiring before getting the inevitable loss, if all it gets you is this so-called "credit" from the fans.

Although I have always wondered why Rocky Marciano didn't go for the even 50-0. Just one more fight? Could have been a bum. Why not go for the even 50?

 

He doesn't have to lose to be great. He should fight the best. I think Duran with several losses in his prime, is one of the greats because he wanted to fight the very best fighters. PBF has been more of a cherry picker. Not to say he couldn't have beaten some of the guys he did not fight, because he may very well have, but he could have fought Shane, Cotto, Tsyu, Margarito and some others and given the fans some excitement.

 

A fighter can definitely be great and undefeated, but he is even greater if he can come back from defeat.