Now I'm still undecided on what I think on this, but... Which is better? Showing your clear superiority, by finishing your career undefeated, beating all there is to beat. Or, showing true determination, and avenging losses against opponents. To some, it might seem like an obvious answer, but I quite like the romance in the revenge. Undefeated is obviously great, but can get quite political when a fighter is nearing the end, and clearly protecting the 0. Any thoughts, or good examples of fighters you like from both sides of the debate
Avenging defeats is miles better on a resume. Undefeated just means well matched. Avenging defeats shows true resilience and adaption.
Marciano's record/legacy would be damaged massively if it were 49-1 rather than 49-0. Lewis's record/legacy would be enhanced massively if it were 41-0-1 rather than 41-2-1. People don't like to accept this because nearly all fighters end up in the "loser's club". But imagine for a second that Fury had been starched by Whyte and beat him in a rematch. It would be a massive indelible stain on his legacy. The same is true of Joshua's actual loss to Ruiz to an even greater degree and it wouldn't have been remotely compensated for even if Joshua had demolished Ruiz in the rematch. Your opponent also needs to give you a rematch if you want a chance to avenge it and that is not really in your power.
If both were against quality resumes, undefeated by a mile. But if they are both 'bad' resumes, again undefeated but with a bit of eye-rolling. Mediocre resumes though? Avenging defeats easily. That to me shows clear improvement and something to invest in. Of course all bets are off if one has a good resume vs the other having a bad, etc.