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

[boliodogs]

No. If he can beat the best fighters of his weight in his day and those fighters were great or near great then he does not need to face adversity. The odds of a fighter being so good that he beats all the best fighters in his weight class without some hard fights is damn slim. I can't think of any great fighter that went undefeated with no hard fights.

[DTMB]

Originally Posted by 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.

TRUE GREATNESS NEEDS VERIFICATION. IT NEEDS VERIFICATION IN THE FORM OF GETTING IN THE RING WITH OTHER TRUE GREAT FIGHTERS.

ATG needs verification again, again, & again.


Ray Leonard has lost.
Ray Robinson has lost.
Muhammad Ali has lost.
Michael Jordan has lost.
Roger Federer has lost.
Usain Bolt has lost.
Tom Brady has lost.
Payton Manning has lost.
Tiger Woods has lost.

Every true great legendary fighter has lost. Every true great legendary team or individual sportman has lost.

True greatness means how you respond to a loss. How you challenged yourself. How do you know what you are made of if you have never been put in a dire challenging situation?

LOSSES & DRAWS = a mark of a warrior. they are battle scars. It signifies that you have been challenged by other greats.

NOBODY IS UNBEATABLE. NOBODY.

[Luilun]

They must fight prime fighter in their own wieght class they can't retire to avoid the prime fighters than come back after they're wash up.They can't make up their own rules by testing their opponents while your test come back dirty only to have Golden boy sweep them under the rug

[Thread Stealer]

You don't HAVE to, theoretically you can be so dominant that you never lose or only lose after like 20 years of comprehensively beating the best guys around you.

Chances are, though, is that you're gonna face some adversity. The great undefeated fighters in history either faced adversity in their wins or have questions about their opposition.

Or the great fighters who never lost until they were past their prime, well they had fights in which they had to overcome some adversity. And/or likewise above, they have some questions regarding the level of opposition.

[New England]

i think a great fighter who sticks around for long enough will eventually be tested. if there are other great fighters at the weight class they will test him in his prime. it's rare to see great fighters at the same weight class in the prime of their careers. if he's really so good that he can't he touched, or there are no other great fighters around, he has to slow down. once he slows, a great fighter will usually find other means of getting to the victory.


greatness is based on accomplishments. there are "types" of great careers and accomplishment. some guys do so much in their primes that they're considered greats based on their work there. others have gone to the well after their primes, and pulled out fights against younger fighters to enhance their resume.


theoretically, a fighter could be so good that he'd never be challenged. if roy jones were to retire after beating john ruiz he would have been a hall of famer. late period wladimir klitchko may never see a hard fight. when he faced adversity early in his career against purrity, sanders, and brewster, he lost. but after he hit his stride he put together a streak that will probably put him in the top 15 of most people's all time list at HW.

[Aztec Wanker]

As long as he fights the very best fighters available at or around their best (instead of "retiring" and coming back a year later to pick on a fighter two weight classes smaller) he doesn't have to engage in a war.

[thuggery]

Originally Posted by DTMB

TRUE GREATNESS NEEDS VERIFICATION. IT NEEDS VERIFICATION IN THE FORM OF GETTING IN THE RING WITH OTHER TRUE GREAT FIGHTERS.

ATG needs verification again, again, & again.


Ray Leonard has lost.
Ray Robinson has lost.
Muhammad Ali has lost.
Michael Jordan has lost.
Roger Federer has lost.
Usain Bolt has lost.
Tom Brady has lost.
Payton Manning has lost.
Tiger Woods has lost.

Every true great legendary fighter has lost. Every true great legendary team or individual sportman has lost.

True greatness means how you respond to a loss. How you challenged yourself. How do you know what you are made of if you have never been put in a dire challenging situation?

LOSSES & DRAWS = a mark of a warrior. they are battle scars. It signifies that you have been challenged by other greats.

NOBODY IS UNBEATABLE. NOBODY.

Originally Posted by Aztec Wanker

As long as he fights the very best fighters available at or around their best (instead of "retiring" and coming back a year later to pick on a fighter two weight classes smaller) he doesn't have to engage in a war.

Two very good posts.

[Aztec Wanker]

Originally Posted by Cuauhtémoc1520

My thing with Mayweather is that he rarely fought the great fighters in their prime. DLH and Cotto were past it IMO, DLH more so. He fought a prime Castillo and lost the first time and then destroyed a prime Corrales.

Yes, yes! This is my main beef with Fraud. Not his ghetto behavior or his pansy ass fans but the fact that he DID NOT fight the best available fighters is what really rustles my jimmies. That plus his charade of a retirement. I will NEVER forgive that faggot for that. I don't understand how his fans can even defend that absurdity!

[DTMB]

Originally Posted by New England

i think a great fighter who sticks around for long enough will eventually be tested. if there are other great fighters at the weight class they will test him in his prime. it's rare to see great fighters at the same weight class in the prime of their careers. if he's really so good that he can't he touched, or there are no other great fighters around, he has to slow down. once he slows, a great fighter will usually find other means of getting to the victory.


greatness is based on accomplishments. there are "types" of great careers and accomplishment. some guys do so much in their primes that they're considered greats based on their work there. others have gone to the well after their primes, and pulled out fights against younger fighters to enhance their resume.


theoretically, a fighter could be so good that he'd never be challenged. if roy jones were to retire after beating john ruiz he would have been a hall of famer. late period wladimir klitchko may never see a hard fight. when he faced adversity early in his career against purrity, sanders, and brewster, he lost. but after he hit his stride he put together a streak that will probably put him in the top 15 of most people's all time list at HW.

not really.

joe calzaghe and ricardo lopez remained undefeated because they refused tough challenges by hiding out in their division.

instead of going up in weight and fighting great fighters they were fine padding their undefeated records.

UNDEFEATED RECORDS = SUSPICOUSNESS.

[New England]

Originally Posted by DTMB

not really.

joe calzaghe and ricardo lopez remained undefeated because they refused tough challenges by hiding out in their division.

instead of going up in weight and fighting great fighters they were fine padding their undefeated records.

UNDEFEATED RECORDS = SUSPICOUSNESS.

lol. there were lots of points made. "not really" is a bit vague.