Would you rather your favourite fighter...

I go for A no doubt, because, as a boxing aficionado, I want my guys to be acheivers, not the type of guys that will take on lesser man in order to add a win to their record. If you have what it takes to be the best in your weight class, go for the biggest opposition and do all that you can to win. Then, if you loose, at least you had the balls to go to the top, and if you aim at the top, chances are that if you miss, you will still end up right up there, where the best are home.

By taking easy guys, all you leave as a legacy is that, you don't have to bust your heart, because you are good enough to beat B class or shot guys, so take the money and run.

 

Good point Decebal however I feel both Pavlik and Jones would expose weaknesses, both would merely go about it a different way:good

 

can't be arsed even bothering to defend calzaghe against comparisons with someone like ottke. nothing like him at all.

 

First, Paulie received alot of respect from the national media, as well as, on this forum for his perfomance against cotto. And yes I could have used an older, better example, but i choose to go recent.

Second an -0- is not something that is only valueable in "newbie" or "Fanboys", sad ass esb term, eyes. It is something that the boxing "INDUSTRY" sees as a valuable commodity. How many up and coming fighters with L's on their resume's do you see getting big pub? (Andy Lee, Joel Julio, etc.) Say what you wanna say about their losses, but the losses set them back, bigtime. I respect and enjoy watching fighters give great performances in losing efforts, but the question was your fav fighter. My fav fighter, Cotto, just took an L after giving a valiant performance and has been written off by many esb members. Although he has done enough to probably make a strong come back, if he would have taken this L a few years ago he probably would have never gotten a shot to fight some of the better fighters he's faced recently. Much less a shot a PBF, which he definitly won't get know after his L.

And by the way an L is and L becasue no matter how you cut it there is still a check in the loss category. Injured, drained, off night, valiant effort, a win is a win and an L is an L. Moral victories mean nothing in professional sports.

 

I agree with you in the fact that most casual fans base their opinion of fighters off there wins and losses ignoring the performance, or quality or opposition, but your question didn't ask whether i respected fighters, or rated fighters higher for A rather than B. It only posed the question, as a fan of a certain fighter would i rather see them in A rather than B. As a boxing fan I would rather see A and would obviously rate fighters who follow A higher than those fringe fighters who never step up in competiton, but as a fan of a certain fighter i would rather his valiant performance come with a win.

I am a die hard Philadelphia eagles fan, and while i would love to see them play well what i want more than anything is a W. At some point do I want to see them get a W against a quality opponent, yes, but I would rather them beat the Giants than lose to the Cowboys. And the same goes for my Fav fighter.

 

I voted A, and I'll give you two classics fought by two of my all time favorites.

Haglar/Hearns
Arguello/Pryor

That says it all.

 

The win is always the main objective.

 

I watch for the fights not the fighter.