Fighter lose and on here they're"shot exposed"but floyd has to lose to be great?

[Larry the boss]

This is the weirdest **** ive heard in my damn life...they said his undefeated record hurts him even if he beats manny,martinez and lets say Khan..people are saying if he lost one of those fights it would enhance his legacy????is he really held at such a high level????

[SplitSecond]

who said that?

[Phil Ivey]

think you're misunderstanding it Larry, pretty sure they mean Floyd's legacy would be greater even if he had losses on his record but fought everyone. Really can't disagree on that.

[Seleção No. 13]

who said that?

Larry likes to press the "New Thread" button instead of "Post Reply". He makes it seem as though one person's opinion really matters.

[IronDanHamza]

He doesn't have to lose.

It's just that the fighters you have to beat to be considered a Top 15-20 ATG, the chances are you will lose some fights.

No one in the Top 20 or maybe even 30 ATG list are undefeated. For a reason.

It's very very very hard to be undefeated and be ranked so highly because the chances are if you are fighting the level of fighters to be considered so great like Robinson, Greb, Duran, Charles, Pep, Langford, Armstong etc did then you will lose some fights.

[Larry the boss]

Hypothetical scenario:

Mayweather has a trilogy with Pacquiao.

- Mayweather wins the first fight by split decision.

- They immediately rematch and Mayweather loses the second fight by TKO on cuts midway through the fight whilst leading the fight on points.

- In an immediate rubber fight Floyd wins by a clear UD.

I feel that this does MORE for Mayweather's legacy than remaining undefeated...

Here's my reasoning:

1) Pacquiao's win over Floyd would be the best win of Pacquiao's career and would therefore mean that Pacman was still a not "old", "shot", "past-prime" etc when Floyd beat him in their first and 3rd fights.

2) Floyd has avenged his only defeat and has therefore shown that he can bounce back from defeat, come back better and learn from his defeat. Something that would prove invaluable when ranking Floyd in terms of ATG status.

Otherwise, if he remained undefeated people will always question his ability to avenge his losses, something which might hold him back so he might not be rated highly by some people.

3) A trilogy of fights with another ATG would further enhance his popularity and legacy.

Does anybody agree with me that this is better for Floyd than remaining undefeated?

so he cant just kick mannys ass..manny has to win for it to be legit

[Larry the boss]

He doesn't have to lose.

It's just that the fighters you have to beat to be considered a Top 15-20 ATG, the chances are you will lose some fights.

No one in the Top 20 or maybe even 30 ATG list are undefeated. For a reason.

It's very very very hard to be undefeated and be ranked so highly because the chances are if you are fighting the level of fighters to be considered so great like Robinson, Greb, Duran, Charles, Pep, Langford, Armstong etc did then you will lose some fights.

maybe just maybe...floyds better than them............

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Mayweather doesnt need to lose. There really is no fighter on his level in the sport including Pacquiao. Thats not his fault.

Whoever thinks he has to lose to be great must didnt watch him at 130. Floyds been great.

[BuckToothed]

This is the weirdest **** ive heard in my damn life...they said his undefeated record hurts him even if he beats manny,martinez and lets say Khan..people are saying if he lost one of those fights it would enhance his legacy????is he really held at such a high level????

If Floyd goes 2-1 in a trilogy with Pac, then his legacy is greatly enhanced even with a loss as opposed to being undefeated and not having fought Pacquiao.

[STFU!!]

maybe just maybe...floyds better than them............

technically he is, people overrate the old school fighter though. They did fight everyone but most them guys wouldn't be top 10 in there divisions today.