Does anyone agree with the view that: A boxer defeated and comes back stronger ends up with a stronger legacy than a boxer undefeated in his career?? Take for example Joe Calzaghe, i know everyone has a view on the guy, im not talking about who hes faced and who he hasnt faced, but hes a top boxer with a top record and will go down in history, but there will always be a question by his name, who he should have faced, when he should have faced them etc. Then you have Khan, and i know he has a jaw as strong as a sunhouse, but if he comes back and defeats prescott, and again Cotto, if he finishes his career having came back and defeating Margarito, i feel he'll end up with a greater legacy, than one such as Calzaghe.
Depends on the situations, and of course the opposition. It shows something to come back from defeat, but it's even better not to lose in the first place. For instance, if Calzaghe had lost to Kessler and came back and won the rematch, his standing wouldn't be quite as high as it is today. Despite showing the ability to come back from an L, it's more impressive to get the job done in one try, not two. As for Cotto and Khan, well it all depends on who they end up fighting and beating in their careers.
