Sometimes I read posts and it's just like, great, another post about how so and so is invulnerable and how bad it is to even speculate on who they could lose to. It's like "Superman beats anyone" stuff. Boxers are real life people, they aren't comic book icons. Chances are, every great pro boxer could have been beat by someone without a huge legacy. Maybe by an amateur who never turned pro. Maybe by a less regarded guy in a different era. Maybe by a bad style matchup in his own era. Or maybe they won a fight they would have normally lost in one of their big fights. Or maybe just by someone who never got involved in boxing at all, but had all the tools. But, in big sections of boxing fandom, it's taken as sacrilege to suggest certain fighters might not have been invulnerable, or born on boxings Mount Rushmore, but that they needed alot to go right for them. It's like the movie slogan, "I could a been a contender". Chance factors into things alot. I don't really think this is as bad a fan feature in other sports, I wonder why it's so huge in boxing? Maybe because it's easier to go long periods without a loss in pro boxing than other sports(including the ams) so it artificially raises expectations? Maybe because it's combat, and people need to believe in an unbeatable hero more?
