Is it better to lose a great fight than to win a tedious one?

a win is always a win but in terms of carear you should always push yourself

the actual question and your first post are completly differant by the way

 

Most of the time, no. Winning is what's important.


But sometimes a fighter can underperform and still win, and sometimes a fighter can show another side of his ability even in defeat, and enhance his reputation.


When Ray Leonard went into the trenches in the 1st fight with Roberto Duran, he revealed himself as an even better fighter than I thought he was, even though he lost.

When Floyd Mayweather ran for 12 rounds and stunk the place out in the rematch with Jose Luis Castillo, I felt what the majority of the crowd and the HBO commentary team seemed to think as well - we had turned up expecting a virtuoso dissection of the man who to many had took PBF's zero, but instead we got a underwhelming performance and a dire fight.

 

Klitschko vs Lewis was very exciting.

 

Ummmm given the choice of losing or winning hmmmm gee I guess I'll go with winning!

 

Barrera v Morales enhanced both fighter's careers.

 

Win and not get brain damage

 

The amount of cases where a loss would be better than a win would be, probably, less than 3%. A win is, basically, a win.

 

no its better to win even controversially

 

I can tell you that the Japanese by and large hold a fighter higher (and hence he becomes a bigger draw) for losing a great fight than winning a poor fight.

 

Is that how they spin WW2?

 

I can't believe this even being debated. It's better to WIN atsch

 

Ya, I'm ot sure why this needs to be debated.

 

That's not the question.
The question was also about ducking hard fights, not just fighting on the backfoot.