Does a loss make for a better all round fighter?

Ive seen alot of people questioning the undefeated records of Calzage and Mayweather on these boards. It seems lke people are not comfortable with a fighter retireing undefeated, questioning the fights they choose to take and their style in the ring. Does retireing undefeated really mean a boxer was never truely tested? Do you have more respect for boxers, such as Cotto (leaving aside the question of Marg cheatin), who loose at the top of there game but yet have the heart to step back in the ring and prove themselfs again? Well that's a pretty general question - everyone has their own resume. But know this, I can't think of one ATG who retired undefeated. Maybe Ricardo Lopez? And as great as he was, I'm not sure I'd consider him an ATG. Either way, it's the exception and not the rule. Bottom line, if you keep fighting great or even good fighters in their prime, you'll eventually lose one way or the other.

I supose i have to agree with the people who are saying that a record with an '0' at the highest level of the sport cant be achived with out ducking some of the real challangers. Personally i have more respect fighters with a loss to their name, boxers, apart from simply entertaining us, act as huge inspirations for many people. Myself included. Its heartbraking to see them loose, but thats all worth it when they come back and prove themselfs all over again!

i think so...look at lennox

As has been noted by virtually everyone, it depends on the fighter. That said, coming back from a devastating loss is always the sign of a great fighter, and adds to their legacy in a way an undefeated fighter is unable to do. True guys like Ali, Leonard, Robinson, Hopkins all had these great comback wins. This is something which really defines an all time great.

As has been noted by virtually everyone, it depends on the fighter. That said, coming back from a devastating loss is always the sign of a great fighter, and adds to their legacy in a way an undefeated fighter is unable to do.

Nothin wrong wit retirin unbeaten as long as you spend your full prime fightin nothin but top opponents. The whole point of a fight is to win, not lose. But guys wit 0s who are at the elite level often have em cuz they ain't fightin all the toughest comp. Obviously losin fights in itself don't make a fighter better, but not bein afraid to lose does.

It really depends on the fighter. There have been plenty of fighters who come back stronger from a loss/Losses ( eg. Jermain Taylor, Wladamir Klitschko, David Haye) and fighters who never get over their first defeat (eg. Jeff Lacy, Naseem Hamed, Meldrick Taylor).

Depends on the fighter and the manner of the loss.

i can see what your sayin alright but in my opinion, no not really, most of the all time greats only have loses cause they fighting past there prime, joe and mayweather have no loses cause they have retired early, although mayweather retires to get more money for come back fights, but if you look at ali whos first defeat was to smokin joe after a 3 year lay off, prime ali beats joe as he went on to prove, then the rest of his defeats were when he was past it, id rather fighters retire early if that means still being undefeated u cant say he is any less great cause he remains undefeated, you cant say they have not proven they have heart or that because joe has come back from knock downs 3 times to win and mayweather was rocked bad by judah

From Calzaghe's last two fights we've seen that he's been knockdown by two strong right hands... However the guy's he's fought have been too old to continue to win the fight, especially in Jones case. Their stamina lets them down. This is why people question Calzaghe's opponents, as they say if a old fighter with a good right hand could knockdown Calzaghe imagine what a younger fighter with a strong right hand could do. In Mayweather's case its a different story. The closest guy's that came too beating him were De La Hoya and Castillo. In Castillo's case he avenged it comfortably second time round and with De La Hoya, i think its easy to say that he'd win that fight second time round as well. There has'nt really been anyone out there that people say Floyds style cannot take. He's fought a Cotto style before. The closest threat to him will proberly be Manny Pacquiao, due to his speed, accuracy and agility. I'm not justifiying why he didnt face him; just saying that there arent many threats to his fighting style as there is with Calzaghe. There hasnt exactly been any evidence of this either in his last few fights.

Whenever I see a fighter with a "0" in the loss column, I take it to mean that they're not fighting the right people. As for whether it makes for a better fighter : It all depends on the fighter. It's 50/50. Sometimes a guy loses and comes back stronger, sometimes once he loses, he's never mentally the same. It's 50/50.

Ive seen alot of people questioning the undefeated records of Calzage and Mayweather on these boards. It seems lke people are not comfortable with a fighter retireing undefeated, questioning the fights they choose to take and their style in the ring. Does retireing undefeated really mean a boxer was never truely tested? Do you have more respect for boxers, such as Cotto (leaving aside the question of Marg cheatin), who loose at the top of there game but yet have the heart to step back in the ring and prove themselfs again? Sometimes yes and sometimes no!!!