When assesing a fighters resume loses count to, DUH

Its not black and white Close disputed losses are obviously more favourable to a fighters resume compared to clear losses Looking at whether the fighter was in prime is important too If prime roy jones lost to tarver we wouldnt be holding roy in such high regard

Of course losses count. If they didn't then how can you count anyone's wins? They had to defeat somebody. When assessing someone's resume you look at everything. Having a loss isn't the end all, be all, but it certainly has to be accounted for when comparing resumes. I understand why OP made this thread though he could be trolling. It's because of the butthurt posters on here who whine about Mayweather's opposition and his "loss" to Castillo to downplay his resume while forgetting that Pacquiao has lost at every level of his career against a variety of opponents.

Of course they do and why wouldn't they? Even though some might be pre or post prime when they lose, they still lost. Doesn't take away from their great wins though This is a post I agree with.

Regardless of where your loss/losses comes in your career, i always rate a fighter when they show they can come back from a loss even stronger or beat the person that beat them. It shows real mental strength, character and is the sign of a great champion when you go from having everything to being nothing but you still have the drive to get back to the top. Undefeated records don't impress me, i like fighters like Mayweather and Calzaghe but there's always been people out there who they could have faced but did not want to step up to the challenge. It's not even the fact that i want to see them beat, if you put anyone against Mayweather he would probably beat them, but it's more about the fact that he didn't want the challenge (Cotto & Margarito) and that shows a lot about him as a fighter, money over legacy.

Of course they do and why wouldn't they? Even though some might be pre or post prime when they lose, they still lost. Doesn't take away from their great wins though

Should we ignore the fact that Pacquiao was KTFO by bums in Torrecampo and Sinsurat because those defeats came early in his career when he wasn't a great fighter? Should we ignore Wlad's loses to Sanders, Brewster, and Purity because he wasn't the great champion that he was today back then? A resume is not just about wins, loses and draws count too and they should be treated as such. maybe you're right.....but... if all fights of a boxer have to be included in his resume, then we have: a boxer's win loss and draws records in his amateur days..and.. a boxer's win loss and draws records in his professional days.... then we have to rewrite the win loss and draws records of most boxers

a lot of people get stopped early in their careers(castillo 4 times, pac twice, etc...) i was talking about on when you reach the elite level and if you get stopped on the elite level then you have to weigh that in with the rest of their resume and see what you get. arguello has such a long and great resume that getting stopped by pryor doesn't take away too much but if a guy like calzaghe got stopped by kessler or hopkins then yeah he would have looked pretty bad. In that case, I agree.

When I look at a fighters resume, I take everything into account wins, loses, and draws they all matter. Does a loss take away from a fighters greatness, not necessarily imo but that doesn't mean that they didn't occur. Assessing everything within a fighters resume is the logical thing to do imo. To each his own.

What about Alexis Arguello who was stopped in the first round of his first fight? Or getting stopped by Jorge Reyes in 6 rounds. Then going on to be a 3 weight World Champion. a lot of people get stopped early in their careers(castillo 4 times, pac twice, etc...) i was talking about on when you reach the elite level and if you get stopped on the elite level then you have to weigh that in with the rest of their resume and see what you get. arguello has such a long and great resume that getting stopped by pryor doesn't take away too much but if a guy like calzaghe got stopped by kessler or hopkins then yeah he would have looked pretty bad.

I dont think losses hurt a legacy too much, because after all its what you achieved that counts. Battling back against the odds or from a loss are two things boxing is all about, and if fighters go on the achieve more then why should we focus on losses? You cant mention Wlads name with hearing about Sanders, Purrity and Brewster, but I think he has achieved enough to be recognised in spite of his losses. The record as a whole counts yes definetly, I agree with you there. But it shouldnt hurt a legacy as much as you make out. Everybody has lost, everybody has been beat. Sugar Ray Robinsons losses dont hurt him, neither does Ali's, or the fact Duran quit, or Hagler lost his defining fight or Hearns lost the most famous blow out of all time, or Hopkins lost his first fight. If you achieve, THAT is what you are remembered for.

it also depends on what kind of loss it is. if you get ktfo in 3 rounds then that doesn't really show you can compete with the elite fighters of your time. a fighter can lose controversial decisions like marquez did to norwood, john, pac-2 or hopkins did to taylor 1-2, calzaghe. most of those decisions easily could have and probably should have gone the other way and don't make a guy look any worse. look at a guy like josh clottey. he lost to baldomir after dominating the fight and was unfairly(imo) dq'd. he lost a close fight to margarito(i scored it a draw last time i watchined), he lost a razor close decision to cotto(i scored it for clottey 114-113 last time i watched it) if the judging had been a little different he would have a beastly record when he faced pac but instead he had a couple losses and everyone looked at him like he was a giant tomato can. i guess it all comes down to how much do you trust the official judges? me, not much. What about Alexis Arguello who was stopped in the first round of his first fight? Or getting stopped by Jorge Reyes in 6 rounds. Then going on to be a 3 weight World Champion.

Loss's don't always matter, no. Especially not early in a career like Pac's loss's, and went on to be as great as he is. Alexis Arguello Jack Britton Pipino Cuevas Henry Armstrong Manuel Ortiz Benny Leonard Benny Lynch Joe Brown Billy Conn Bernard Hopkins Pone Kingpetch Juan Manuel Marquez All lost their very first fight. And it literally contributes nothing to their legacy.

it also depends on what kind of loss it is. if you get ktfo in 3 rounds then that doesn't really show you can compete with the elite fighters of your time. a fighter can lose controversial decisions like marquez did to norwood, john, pac-2 or hopkins did to taylor 1-2, calzaghe. most of those decisions easily could have and probably should have gone the other way and don't make a guy look any worse. look at a guy like josh clottey. he lost to baldomir after dominating the fight and was unfairly(imo) dq'd. he lost a close fight to margarito(i scored it a draw last time i watchined), he lost a razor close decision to cotto(i scored it for clottey 114-113 last time i watched it) if the judging had been a little different he would have a beastly record when he faced pac but instead he had a couple losses and everyone looked at him like he was a giant tomato can. i guess it all comes down to how much do you trust the official judges? me, not much.

I think that losses count, but not as much when boxers like Roy Jones are still fighting. Did his loss to Tarver count? Absolutely. Does his recent loss count? No. How could it? Pac's losses to Morales (maybe Marquez) definitely count; however, his losses to guys he fought when he was a teenager are not nearly as important: he wasn't even a fully developed human being at the time. I agree that being undefeated over a long career is overlooked, but losses are not losses.

you're contradicting yourself there Controversial i.e. a robbery, a fight being stopped due to an injury, etc. However, a clear cut loss should not be ignored.

you pulling the "undefeated" card here, i can sense it I'm not trying to pull anything, if I was best believe I would let it be known loud and clear. All I'm saying is that loses should not be ignored. Loses count the same way that wins count. Floyd will probably lose one day anyway.

A loss is a loss no matter when it occurs. If you lose it still counts and goes down on your record. Now if you're talking about a controversial loss that's different. Loses count just like wins count. you're contradicting yourself there

KLTP;10932899']It depends. I can easily say "Floyd lost 5 times in the amateurs!" even though they're loses but really in reality people won't count them. Floyd was a kid and he went on to bigger and better things. Just like Pacquiao did. People don't judge a fighters resume by what was done in the amateurs, it's about what happens when they go pro.

Lebedev rules! you know, because he KO'd Roy in 2011 HUGE victory :laugh:

It means those loses should affect the judgment of his resume. The loses do make up a part of his resume right, or do they not count? you pulling the "undefeated" card here, i can sense it