Say a boxer never officially lost in the ring but had draws on his record like Ricardo Lopez & Laszlo Papp in the pros.; are the records of Lopez and Papp still referred to as spotless in those cases OR do we not call their records spotless as Mayweather's?
No because by definition a draw implies that you werent the best in the world that night. So its a blemish in the sense that you don't have a completely uninterrupted win streak. You didn't lose, but you couldn't convincingly beat the man on front of you either.
yes with a small Y, I understand what your saying, and BitPlayer hit on a very good point. IF a fighter has a great record and some of those draws were documented questionable and should be wins, well then Of course. Likewise if they were definite competitive Draws, then there's no shame nor loss there, so yes again. keep in mind too, some fighters Wins are questioned, and other fighters, again, their records can be quite padded too, so I understand exactly what you saying. for me it's the same with 'achievements', they can mean very little, or much praise indeed. It should always be about; Skill, Longevity at the Top, Competition, Performance against that comp - win or lose, Era's - some better than others and Overall Career Facts... achievements that get bye some of the afford mentioned, are obviously lesser than achievements, WITH the afford mentioned. I agree with what your asking, ALL the Recorded Facts need be considered, yes!
There's no such thing as a spotless record. If you have a loss, it's obviously not spotless, same with draws. Then people criticize not KOing everyone, then if they do, they'll critique them taking too long. Then they'd only be free from criticism free of they do it all in 1. And condidering no-one in history can do that too top level fighters, people will criticize the level of opposition. No winning, being undefeated is overrated. People will always find something to rip down.
