How Much Does a Loss Take Away From a Fighters Greatness?

Depends on the context of the loss, and who they lost to.

 

Precisely...

a Close fight, a good showing, a questionable decision or an outright blatant robbery... those L's are no stain on a man, nor should they be.

a well & true defeat, out gunned, hustled and beat or blatantly outclassed, well, those are markable L's.

there is a huge difference there and these should always determine fighters for better or for worse.

 

Yes.
Obviously You'll look at the losses while assesing fighters Head-to-Head standing, judging how good He was.

When it comes to judging fighters's greatness and resume.. how important are loses there, is the question. They will hurt fighter's standing by virtue of adding to his opponent's resume instead of his, but does it make sense to punish a fighter for defeat in any way beyond that?

There were some scenarios where me applying the "wins only" logic certainly gave me pause.

Take Hasin Rahman - his win over prime Lennox Lewis is an ATG Heavyweight win. That win alone puts his resume above many fighters who were consistantly more successful on similar level. The rematch showed that it was a bit of an... exception let's say, from how most fights between the two would likely play out. So does it make sense to rank Rahman above let's say Tua, Byrd?
Interesting paradox is also that Hasim Rahman has better single win than Lennox Lewis.. because Lennox can't be given the same credit for beating Rahman as Rahman gets for beating him.

 

Dare I say, it comes down to context, for the umpteenth reference to same in this thread?

Of course in lieu of abstractly deferring just to the black and white stats alone, examination of context is highly appropriate but can often call in subjectivity.

I’m of the opinion that among a competitive field with all fighters duly busy and engaging one another - a loss here and there is not a big deal, if not even to be expected.

In the current era, a single loss appears to have a much greater negative weight in terms of public perception.

So much so, that some fighters expressly orientate their careers and opponent selections to protect their zeros.

That type of negative overweighting (for a loss) and the associated ethic to unduly avoid potential losses of course decreases the likelihood of said fighters actually establishing their position properly and materially, among the very best -

Suffice, to say, we have “seen” a good number of “must” fights either being well delayed, beyond practical or never materialising at all -

In many cases, the “zero”’ can be a false recommendation of a fighter’s true worth.

 

Couldn't you say thaf about Andre Ward or Terrence Crawford? They're ATGs but few would argue they're untouchable.

 

Losses definitely depends on who he loses to,how did he lose and on what circumstances.
Duràn definitely loses to Marvin,but he went competitive for the full distance,and was perhaps the lightest opponent Marvin ever fought,and Marvin still said he was the best he faced.
That could add a good note to a fighter's legacy for me, however, when you lose to an unknown fighter, even stopped,like how Pongsaklek Wonjongkam got stopped by Sonny Boy Jaro...

 

For me, all losses matter. They are all negatives. It just depends on the circumstances in how negative they are.

For example, Canelo losing to Mayweather at 23 years old is a negative. It's not a major negative because he was super young but it is a negative nonetheless because he was fighting a much older fighter who he had advantages over (size, physical strength and power). Historically, the younger fighter usually takes out the older fighter. Not only did Canelo lose, he lost wide (to most people).

Another example would be Tyson vs Douglas. Obviously arguably the biggest upset in boxing history. Losing to someone of that caliber who accomplished nothing after is a major. Tyson at the time was destroying basically everyone and he lets someone like Douglas not only upset him but knock him out. Major negative.

Then there are other types of losses that people usually give fighters credit for that I don't (I'm probably in the minority). Losses such as when a past prime fighter puts up a great fight (Duran vs Hagler, Nonito vs Inoue, Morales vs Maidana, etc). I don't give them credit for losing. I also don't heavily dock them as though they are in their prime. For me those losses are probably the lowest in terms of negatives but they still count to me.

This is probably roughly how I would rank losses from 1 being the highest:
1. Upset loss
2. Dominated in a matchup that was perceived as 50-50 going in
3. Jumped up too much weight
4. Young in career losses
5. Losses because they continued to fight way past their prime.
6. Past prime but puts up a great fight
7. Prime vs prime loss-Meaning two fighters in their primes fight and one losses. Although this is a gray area because it depends on how they lost. Lose a close fight and it's ranked here. Get dominated then it ranks 2nd.

 

Depends on WHO they lost to, how the loss happened, and more importantly did the loser avenge the loss, and go on to greatness after the loss.
Prime examples Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali .
Both had their 1st loss to fighters Rightfully considered ATG 's in Duran and Frazier, the fights are seen as "epic" where they came up just short.
Both those losses enhanced the perceptions of Ali and Leonard.
Prior too the losses they were both seen as physically talented, but possible " flash in the pans" or just media creations.
After the losses, they were seen as warriors, destined for greatness, and would conquer even greater foes in the future.

 

If we judge Ken Norton only by his wins, he looks like at least a borderline ATG — he beat a rather prime Muhammad Ali.

I wouldn’t take much away from him for losing narrowly twice to Ali, but mention Norton anywhere and no doubt his KO losses to Foreman and Shavers (two of the greatest punchers in history) will feature prominently in the discussion.

 

More then people today think they do less than people in the past thought they did.

I think people have responded to "0 culture" by actually punishing fighters with pretty records. With losses being a stamp of authenticity of some sort. And the modern boxing fan has gotten more and more unreasonable about what constitutes a quality non title resume. I think we're seeing people starting to ignore all boxing feats except wins over ATGs.

I believe fighters can benefit from quality losses but that is different from punishing fighters for not losing and I think we're seeing more and more of that.

 

A loss in its own right doesn’t necessarily prove greatness - but it can provide a fighter the opportunity to prove his ability to pick himself up, come back from adversity, and still go forward.

Therefore a loss is read in conjunction with how the fighter reacts and fares in his career after the defeat.

A hitherto perfect record or completed perfect record doesn’t necessarily fully inform us on that particular attribute of a fighters character.

 

That is important though, in making an overall evaluation.

Ali found a way to beat both Foreman and Shavers.


I have Norton as an ATG and despite ranking Ali higher overall, I have Norton winning two of their three bouts.