Does an undefeated record mean nothing? Losses are what make a true great, right?

losses don't make a true great. Ali had great victories to go with his losses.

 

I`m sure you`ll find that the popular opinion on ESB is just like yours... tho your Ali comment is a bit off, unless of course your talking strictly HWs.

The majority regard Robinson as the best ever p4p... as do I.... tho if you ask a few on here in the general forum they`ll probably say pac or fmj, thick as **** half of these ****s, you`ll find out soon enough, enjoy

 

it depends who u fought.

 

Obviously if Ali never lost he would rated even higher. dumb thread.

 

Why do people on ESB try to overrate losses? Nobody wants to lose

Only Floyd is capable of this. He's made people not want to go undefeated anymore.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I[/ame]

 

most of them still have the kindergarten mentality where everyone is a winner as long as they try. They then apply this mentality to the cruelest sport

 

:rofl

 

In the last 20 years,an "O" has become a promotional necessity but it tends to be misleading a lot of the time.
There was an excellent thread about the Spectrum the other day.All those great middleweights from the 70's often fought and beat each other more than once and a few of them would easily win world titles nowadays.
Most people who really know boxing know to look beyond an unbeaten record when judging a fighter.

 

Its about who you fight.... if a fighter has an undefeated record but has sh*t fighters on his resume then the 0 doesnt means sh*t... now if the fighter is undefeated with decent names on his resume then it might indicate his skill level... this can also be reversed, if a fighter losses to a very good fighter it doesnt automatically make him overrated or shot, its all about who the wins and losses come from

 

It's not a dumb thread at all. One of the reasons I like Duran is because he took challenges. Nobody has to guess how great a fighter he was because he dared to lose. He could have just stayed at lightweight, raked up wins and retired, and we laugh at the notion he could beat a middleweight in the twilight of his career.

Lewis said his loss to McCall made him a much better fighter. So losses aren't all bad, in fact you can often learn more from a loss than a win.

Bottom line is that if you dare to be great, you have to take the risk you might lose.

 

That's pretty wrongheaded. If you face great competition you'll lose sometimes, but you get better. That's why a fighter who has some losses on his record can be rated higher then someone with a glitzy (basically for show) '0'.

 

it's ******ed man. Of course a team who's undefeated vs varsity teams isn't as good as a team who's got 5 losses vs pros, but that's different.
Going undefeated is an amazing feat and it's something every athlete would want to accomplish.
Yeah Duran fought some really good competition and has a good number of losses, but he's still very great. Now imagine if he went undefeated vs that same competition. Would you rank him lower and or higher?

The New England Patriots from a few years ago were being called the GOAT because of their undefeated season. I guess boxing is the only sport you don't wanna be undefeated in :conf

 

I honestly don't think there is any way he couldve stayed at 135 much longer than he did.

 

:deal