Which fighter's legacy has benefited most from a fight not happening?

I got the same thread going in the Classic Forum, wanted to see what the General Forum thought.

In boxing one loss can damage your credibility and affect the public and fan's perception of you.

Whenever we do mythical match ups between fighters who fought around the same time period but never actually fought sometimes we tend to overrate the ability of the "perceived threat" who never got a shot at the champion or the "decided favorite". Inevitably this gives the "perceived threat" a little more credence they may actually deserve or sometimes it undermines the "decided favorite" or champion based on a fight that never happened.

Some fighters have maintained their mystique based on a fight that never came off.

So with regards to legacy; who do you think among the fighters listed below (perceived threats) benefited most from the fight not happening assuming they fought and lost to the champion or "decided favorite"?

Sam Langford (had he rematched Jack Johnson and lost)
Harry Wills (had he fought Jack Dempsey and lost)
Nino Valdez (had he fought Rocky Marciano and lost)
Tony Ayala Jr. (had he fought Roberto Duran and lost)
Salvador Sanchez (had he fought Alexis Arguello and lost)
Aaron Pryor (had he fought Sugar Ray Leonard and lost)
Lennox Lewis (had he fought Riddick Bowe and lost)
George Foreman (had he fought Mike Tyson and lost)
Dariusz Michalczewski (had he fought Roy Jones Jr. and lost)
Vitaly Klitschko (had he lost in a to rematch to Lennox Lewis)

On another note (using the same fighters) which champion or "decided favorite" has the best case that they undeservedly had their legacy questioned based on that fight not coming off?

Keep in mind the idea of the this thread is not to suggest that I think these fighters would have lost rather whose credibility would have been shattered most.

 

Honestly I thought that I'd see more votes for Vitaly but I guess not.

I'm definitely interested in what everyone's response is.

 

First off that was never a foregone conclusion.

Second of all Riddick Bowe in 1993 was a solid fighter and had they fought he would have been the betting favorite. A little off topic but ultimately you're missing the point of the thread.

Incidentally your comment regarding Bowe vs. Lewis indirectly answered the thread.

Your perception of Lewis is such that it's inconceivable that Bowe could have won back then when in fact he was in 1993 regarded as the Better fighter.