In order to be the greatest of all time, do fighters have to face adversity?

BoxingGenius27

It seems in order to be considered the greatest of all time or one of the greats, you have to either have wars, go life and death with various opponents or at least lose a few times throughout your career.

Without getting too specific and naming names, rarely do you see someone dominate several divisions over an extended period of time and get credit for it. Normally, (insert fighter) list of opponents somehow get discredited along the way.

So the main point/concern at hand is should we advise this new generation not to win to convincingly, but in turn try to have at least 2-3 "wars" with a top ranked opponent and look like they're struggling so their legacy can go down in history as one of the greats?

Feel free to discuss.

Tim Horton

I would like to see a great fighter go through some sort of adversity and fight through it. Leave no questions unanswered is what I always say.

Tim Horton

with that said, if a fighter gets through his career, fights the best without being challenged and still retires on top then good for him.

DIB42 · 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoxingGenius27

So the main point/concern at hand is should we advise this new generation not to win to convincingly, but in turn try to have at least 2-3 "wars" with a top ranked opponent and look like they're struggling so their legacy can go down in history as one of the greats?

Feel free to discuss.

If a fighter is constantly fighting the best opposition available, inevitably they will face adversity and end up in "wars" with top ranked opponents.

You are only as good as the opponents you faced however. If you only fought bums, you're the "king of the bums". If you take on everyone and win, then you're the best fighter of that era. If you fight several ATGs or fighters of your era that will also become ATGs and win decisively, you're the best of the ATGs. (sort of, alot of speculation plays into that last one, but hopefully you get my drift)

I don't think its an issue of making yourself look vunerable. Its more of less to keep challenging yourself and rising to the occasion.

The Gambler1981

Dudes fighting down to the level of their opposition is not a trait of a great~ if a guy faces adversity because he faces a guy that is really tough for him and overcomes that, that is one thing and that is a good thing as finding a way to overcome a problem and win anyway is the sign of a great.

If a dude loses because he came up against a very tough challenge that isn't that bad, but if a guy loses because he was messing around not fighting in the proper manner and up to his full capabilities that dude is a joker and is not taking the fight game seriously enough.

Basco

I don't think a boxer needs to necessarily face adversity. As long as he is beating the best boxers available(and not ducking as is so predominant nowadays), you should convinced everybody that you are great!

Dr Rumack

Adversity tends to reveal a fighter's greatness. So while it isn't strictly necessary, it certainly helps a lot.

Optimistic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basco

I don't think a boxer needs to necessarily face adversity. As long as he is beating the best boxers available(and not ducking as is so predominant nowadays), you should convinced everybody that you are great!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Rumack

Adversity tends to reveal a fighter's greatness. So while it isn't strictly necessary, it certainly helps a lot.

I agree with both these posts.

ironmike2012

It helps to comeback from a loss, knockdown or certain defeat. It shows you can handle yourself no matter what happens. Some fighters cherry pick a whole career and think they are the greatest, when they would have lost many times fighting the murderer's row that some great fighters have fought. Hell if most fighter fought the best at every weight class they enter, the 0's in most fighters record would go.
The reason people say Ali, SRR or SRL are the greatest, is because they were underdogs in fights, got knocked down and came back and won when no one thought they could win. Fighters who fight hand-picked over matched opponents only hurt their selves, because after they retire, they will be forgotten. Most people rank Oscar De La Hoya high on the all-time list and he lost most of his big fight, but he always fought the best fighters, even when he had no chance (BHOP).

IronDanHamza

They don't have to, IMO.

Tim Horton Wife Beater Est 1997 Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 20,274 Rep Power: 198 Points: 400,342,056,178.59 Bank: 3,200,638,717.78 Total Points: 403,542,694,896.37 Donate	I would like to see a great fighter go through some sort of adversity and fight through it. Leave no questions unanswered is what I always say.

Basco Interim Champion Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 501 Rep Power: 2 Points: 9,543.43 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 9,543.43 Donate	I don't think a boxer needs to necessarily face adversity. As long as he is beating the best boxers available(and not ducking as is so predominant nowadays), you should convinced everybody that you are great!

Dr Rumack Undisputed Champion Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 2,953 Rep Power: 12 Points: 3,017,000,075,128.93 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 3,017,000,075,128.93 Donate	Adversity tends to reveal a fighter's greatness. So while it isn't strictly necessary, it certainly helps a lot.

IronDanHamza All Time Great Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 18,047 Rep Power: 48 Points: 10,262,350,272.04 Bank: 2,100,278,938,997.18 Total Points: 2,110,541,289,269.22 Donate	They don't have to, IMO.