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

Losses can make you better, but the motivation to stay perfect can make you better also.

 

I think the key thing is if you take almost every possible challange and lose some it is better for your legacy then if you avoid many challanges and never lose.

 

nothing wrong with that. I was pointing out the group that credits a fighter for brutally losing.

if fighter A gets dominated by fighter B, it's twisted to consider their fight a plus on fighter A's record.

We have people on here that try to downplay losses just because the person lost to a "name". They think like females who will buy as long as the brand badge, label, or designer name is on there

 

Not necessarily, are you saying Floyd or Marciano or Calzaghe didn't face great competition? It's more about being consistant, being able to bring your best every single fight, that is the accomplishment. If Manny was at his best every fight he wouldn't have a loss...same can be said for a lot of guys, but for whatever reason these guys (as of now) were consistent and brought their best night in night out, and their best was better than their opponents on each occassion.

 

now I can agree with that, but the way the OP put it, I couldn't back

 

Its more important to say you fought the best of your generation rather than say you were undefeated.

Fighters are remembered for their fights not their records.

Does anybody know off the top of there heads Ray Leonards record? Probably not . Can you name the great fights he was in , of course.

 

For Floyd fans, undefeated means a lot to them. They said its a skill......a skill of cherrypicking hence undefeated is what makes it great:roflatsch

 

you mean yourself?

This content is protected

 

Can you blame Marciano if he was this good? Watch this video and then tell me what Muhammad Ali could have possibly done to beat him.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sncQC8_5uEM[/ame]

 

whata *****

 

It's pretty much impossible to say that a fighter is both undefeated and truly tested. A perfect record is a nice accomplishment on paper, but it can be as shallow as Ottke's, dubious as Calzhage's, and controversial as Mayweather's in reality.

 

An undefeated record means a lot if it's loaded with names of other good-great fighters beaten when they were in their prime or close to it.

An undefeated record loaded with no-names or old/past-it greats doesn't mean as much as a record with some losses that nevertheless includes mostly top flight competition.

An "0" alone doesn't make a fighter great. What makes a fighter great is the quality of who they beat, the time when they beat them, and how they beat them.

 

why u laughin, *****?

 

greatgood