Avenging a loss or a "0" which one better defines greatness or the best?

[WarVeteranO01]

It could be argued til we are all blue in the face who was the greatest of all time. Theres a strong argument that Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, some may think Ray Robinson, some might think Archie Moore, personally I think it was Joe Louis but one thing these guys all had in common was none of them were undefeated, they all had losses (multiple) but they all either avenged their losses or at least had the desire to which I think is what defined them and made them great & stand out above the rest. Now look at fighters that never lost like Rocky Marciano, Joe Calzaghe, & Floyd Mayweather, none of these guys are even put in the same bracket (top 10 ever) as the fighters I mentioned (maybe Floyd will one day) but yet they retired (or will retire) undefeated & had some magnicent careers.

Why is that? Is avenging a loss more significant than never to have lost?? Is being undefeated overrated??? Does/did losing make them greater???? Or is it simply just a difference in gnerations/eras of boxing?????

[Dr Rumack]

Both are superficial measures. Of the two, the '0' is the weaker indicator, but really and truly there's no shortcut to measuring greatness. You need to do your homework, study the careers, and most importantly watch the damn fights. Who they fought, when they fought them, how they fought them. That's the stuff that matters.

[boxinghead530]

I like fighters who can come back from adversity. It shows heart, determination and dedication. And a fighter that can lose and come back from that and still get to the top shows how great they are.

A fighter who has an "0" is good but to me an "0" is not that important to me. I'd take a determined fighter who lost and is back at the top dominating over a guy with an "0".

An "0" is only important if that fighter with an "0" has taken on only the very best. Case in point, Mayweather. He is Undefeated in a 19 year career. You'd think a guy that has been undefeated in that long of a time would be a lock and universally recognized as the Top guy of all-time or even top ten. Universally he is only recognized at around 20th all-time. So that says there is more to prove IF, and that's a big IF, he wants to prove to be the absolute best of all time. That tells me that even though he is undefeated in 19 years and only at the 20th spot, either he didn't fight the absolutely the best fighters out their or he is just in a weak era of boxers. There is still a fighter or two he can fight that can move him up the latter of all time greatness but its up to Mayweather if he wants to take those chances. But hey he is undefeated and ranked 20th all-time, to me that's a great accomplishment in itself and I praise him for it.

[WarVeteranO01]

Both are superficial measures. Of the two, the '0' is the weaker indicator, but really and truly there's no shortcut to measuring greatness. You need to do your homework, study the careers, and most importantly watch the damn fights. Who they fought, when they fought them, how they fought them. That's the stuff that matters.

& I do agree, but look at it like this, lets take Ali for instance, some people could argue that he wasnt the greatest because he consistently wasnt throughout his career, there was a point in his career when Joe Frazier was the better man. Than you take a guy like Floyd, and he has consistently been the best throughout his career, nobody out of (soon to be 49) has beaten him. But what to this day makes Ali the best (or one of the best) was it because he took back his losses? Did that actaully make him better than being undefeated?

[MurkaMan]

I like fighters who can come back from adversity. It shows heart, determination and dedication. And a fighter that can lose and come back from that and still get to the top shows how great they are.

A fighter who has an "0" is good but to me an "0" is not that important to me. I'd take a determined fighter who lost and is back at the top dominating over a guy with an "0".

An "0" is only important if that fighter with an "0" has taken on only the very best. Case in point, Mayweather. He is Undefeated in a 19 year career. You'd think a guy that has been undefeated in that long of a time would be a lock and universally recognized as the Top guy of all-time or even top ten. Universally he is only recognized at around 20th all-time. So that says there is more to prove IF, and that's a big IF, he wants to prove to be the absolute best of all time. That tells me that even though he is undefeated in 19 years and only at the 20th spot, either he didn't fight the absolutely the best fighters out their or he is just in a weak era of boxers. There is still a fighter or two he can fight that can move him up the latter of all time greatness but its up to Mayweather if he wants to take those chances. But hey he is undefeated and ranked 20th all-time, to me that's a great accomplishment in itself and I praise him for it.

Their is not a fighter in history that can face Floyd's foes at the time he faced them and humiliate them that way. Their is no fighter in history with that much consistancy. Closest is SRR but his record is padded with bums.

Every 0 isnt the same. Floyd's 0 shows invinceability which is better than a fighter who lost and showed heart in coming back.

And top 20? I'd like to find a fighter in history that can actually BEAT Floyd. Floyd faced so many styles. Big azz young guys, tall guys, fast guys, boxers, volume punchers.

He has shown that no matter what style he faces, he will make them all look flatfooted, clumsey, and slow.

I think every ATG has a different legacy. SRL always found a way to win against the very best. But Floyd finds a way to humiliate against the very best, even at an older age, while SRL was washed up doing dope because he didnt train and dedicate himself like Floyd.

So while other fighters have great resumes and legacies, I have Floyd at Top 3 based off of actually being skillwise the best fighter in history and the fact that the other ATG's cant actually beat him or trouble him.

Pac is so awkward, yet Floyd made him look like the rest. If he couldnt even COMPETE, I dont think their is a style in history that can.

And remember, Pac's whole career looked like Duran at LW. Duran can only fight similar to Pac at one weight. While Pac was a beast his whole career. Floyd had a truly uncomparible career!

[MurkaMan]

& I do agree, but look at it like this, lets take Ali for instance, some people could argue that he wasnt the greatest because he consistently wasnt throughout his career, there was a point in his career when Joe Frazier was the better man. Than you take a guy like Floyd, and he has consistently been the best throughout his career, nobody out of (soon to be 49) has beaten him. But what to this day makes Ali the best (or one of the best) was it because he took back his losses? Did that actaully make him better than being undefeated?

Ali lost and came back with a W over Foreman, which is great. But its not like he lost, and came back on a tear. Floyd is byfar greatet imo

[Eff Pandas]

It depends. An L to an inferior fighter even if avenged can still look pretty ****ty (ie Adonis Stevenson) & an 0 vs subpar opposition or lacking opposition in the minds of most boxing fans isn't as great as an 0 might leave you to believe (ie Joe Calzaghe). That said I think just due to the lack of 0's at the elite level in the sport the 0 better defines greatness. There are only a handful of guys who've been among the top 10 or so guys in their divisions who've never lost & hundreds upon hundreds of top 10, top 20 caliber respectable to elite fighters that have avenged L's.

[TX_BOXNG]

Mayweather has shown greatness in close decision fights they could go either way n rematch an easy decision, thats greater greatness

[AntonTheMeh]

it depends.

[Johnwoo8686]

So some of you are saying if you beat a guy clearly the first and only time you face him you are not as "great" than if you were to lose to that same opponent and beat him the second time?