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

I disagree.

Ricardo Lopez, Jimmy Barry, and Rocky Marciano are proof that you don't need to lose to be great.

 

slightly agree.

a fighter that hasnt tasted defeat could mean hes the best. but can also mean he's a cherry picker or fought in a weight class or era were there wasn't any great compitition. why do you think fighters are compared to the old era of boxing. where many believed that there was great compitition no matter how much you weighed. but a fighter who comes back from a defeat is ether better for it or worse off with it. some dont even come back at all.

 

Our willingness to label a fighter "Great" is relative to the amount of respect he commands among hard core boxing fans. Example: PBF and Calzaghe are undefeated, but if they stay retired, they will never command the kind of universal respect of an Arguello, a Haglar, a Hearns, a Duran, et.

 

AGREED!:good

 

"Show me a fighter that's undefeated and I will show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone". I believe angelo dundee said so. I fully agree. No one is perfect and if you haven't lost its because you haven't taken the greater risks.
There is no such thing as a perfect fighter and unless you are perfect then you are going to lose to somebody at some point.