Champions: Domination or coming back from adversity - what is more impressive?

For a veteran world champion its domination. For a prospect I would like to see how he reacts when things don't go his way before I crown him the next great champion. Well, not sure I agree with that. Take even Muhammad Ali, he had WARS with most of his ATG or best opponents, he didn't dominate, and had to come back from adversity to win. That's a big part of why so many people idolize him. In fact, I don't think there has been a fighter who has ever dominated a fully world class division. Wlad's opponents have been questionable...Floyd's fought some duds and guys past their best. Pac has had his ups and downs. To be particular, I am talking about the notion of is it worth being undefeated or totally dominant rather than taking some hits along the way, perhaps crushing losses, and come back either just as strong or stronger than before? Dominance is impressive and respected of course, but I just feel being too dominant for a fighter's own good often happens, and questions start being asked over the quality of the opposition.

For a veteran world champion its domination. For a prospect I would like to see how he reacts when things don't go his way before I crown him the next great champion.

it's not about how many times you fall it's about how many you get back up. wlad and pac both impressive in this area and also somebody like hopkins who lost his first then lost his first big chance (jones jnr) but came through after those loses to dominate the division and well etc etc you know how it goes

Domination for me is more impresive. A come from behind could be due to the opponents lack of stamina, determination, weak mind, etc. That doesn't necessarily reflects on the fighter's greatness! As long as you are fighting top opposition, domination of the opponent throughout should leave no question.

Floyd and PAC used to dominate....... Dominating means taking on all comers... Both have used the politics of boxing to get out of dangerous fights..... Floyd more so since he has a whole decade of doing this....

I see plenty of people lauding the "coming back from adversity" attribute and I agree that it's an admirable trait. Shame a few fans of today are so quick to scream "hype job" as soon as someone loses, or even has to do something different to win a fight (box not KO). Overcoming the adversity of fan opinion seems to be as hard as overcoming an opponent. Still, any fighter that can get to the top, lose in devastating fashion and come back (especially against the opponent that did for them), is something special. Another thing that's interesting is that dominance by remaining undefeated always comes with serious scrutiny. People look to discredit an 0 for the sake of discrediting an 0. "No one could be THAT good", right? Takes dedication, professionalism and ongoing desire to keep winning- if you're facing top oppo. Jus because a fighter didn't lose, doesn't mean they didn't have to overcome something in a fight (injury, KDs or just a bad first couple of rounds). It's why I love this sport. Good post.

To dominate and then come back from adversity like Pac has, then you know you have a complete champion, something Floyd isn't. When Pac got sparked out, everyone was coming out of the woodwork saying they knew Pac was overated all this time? Yet he comes back from a career ending defeat by beating p4p top 5 fighters and ko artists with only one loss on their record. It takes someone special to come back from losses Pac did and it shows character and what metal you have and your make up. The fact that Pac is still a worthy opponent for Floyd is no credit to Floyd, all credit goes to Pac for that. Look at Meldrick taylor after losing on his feet to Chavez, he was never the same. Pac has had a career and a half already, so if he lost to Bradley and rios, you could forgive Pac, as losing is what happens at the end of your career. But Pac didn't read the script. How do you know Floyd wouldn't do the same if he had lost? The rest of your post is just fanboy drivel that I didn't care to read.

I see plenty of people lauding the "coming back from adversity" attribute and I agree that it's an admirable trait. Shame a few fans of today are so quick to scream "hype job" as soon as someone loses, or even has to do something different to win a fight (box not KO). Overcoming the adversity of fan opinion seems to be as hard as overcoming an opponent. Still, any fighter that can get to the top, lose in devastating fashion and come back (especially against the opponent that did for them), is something special. Another thing that's interesting is that dominance by remaining undefeated always comes with serious scrutiny. People look to discredit an 0 for the sake of discrediting an 0. "No one could be THAT good", right? Takes dedication, professionalism and ongoing desire to keep winning- if you're facing top oppo. Jus because a fighter didn't lose, doesn't mean they didn't have to overcome something in a fight (injury, KDs or just a bad first couple of rounds). It's why I love this sport.

Pac & Vlad have both been knocked the **** out in their primes. Its a mark on their legacy like it or not. Pac was not in his prime. The last fight considered in mannys prime would of prob been against margarito

It really all depends on one variable: who they defeated/ the quality of their opposition. If a fighter dominates great opponents, all the greater for him. If a fighter overcomes adversity against great opposition, it shows a championship quality heart and intelligence and diversity. All too often a fighter who dominates does so because of less than great opposition, thus padding his record into a false beacon/of "greatness" for the masses are fooled by numbers. Who you fight is just as important as how you beat them......if not more so.

I think a dominant champion is by definition the best, but seeing someone beaten/losing and then coming back and ultimately being victorious is often the best to see. A man who climbs out of a losing situation and becomes the victor is more inspiring than a guy who just wins in my opinion. Champions win. Legends come back.

I selected coming back from adversity because that has the most heartening quality. But the truth is, BOTH, conquest of adversity and dominance are equally required ingredients for greatness. Lennox Lewis, both Klitschko's, Manny Pacquiao- these are the guys who embody both principles to the fullest extent. Everybody knows that the dominance of Mayweather is worthless because he doesn't fight the right fights. But likewise, everybody knows that a boxer who goes to war often in epic battles is not worth anything in terms of greatness if he fails against bummy boxers often.

Hopkins lost his first fight Commendable that he came back to become a legend

Really depends on the circumstances, no right or wrong answer.

Pac & Vlad have both been knocked the **** out in their primes. Its a mark on their legacy like it or not.

To dominate and then come back from adversity like Pac has, then you know you have a complete champion, something Floyd isn't. When Pac got sparked out, everyone was coming out of the woodwork saying they knew Pac was overated all this time? Yet he comes back from a career ending defeat by beating p4p top 5 fighters and ko artists with only one loss on their record. It takes someone special to come back from losses Pac did and it shows character and what metal you have and your make up. The fact that Pac is still a worthy opponent for Floyd is no credit to Floyd, all credit goes to Pac for that. Look at Meldrick taylor after losing on his feet to Chavez, he was never the same. Pac has had a career and a half already, so if he lost to Bradley and rios, you could forgive Pac, as losing is what happens at the end of your career. But Pac didn't read the script.