Would Floyd Mayweather Have a Better Legacy if He Had a Loss?

[Guest]

Personally, I see Mayweather as a fighter who is just afraid to put his undefeated record at risk. I think if he had suffered a loss earlier in his career, he might not be so afraid to fight the best now. I think all his business moves are aimed toward padding his bank account while not risking his zero. It's pretty sad, honestly, and prevents him from going down as a true great in the sport.

The guy has no problem calling out guys with big names, but are clearly past their prime such as DLH and Mosley. But when the true contenders step up to him and offer him a chance to truly create a legacy, he makes nothing but excuses. Why else would a fighter turn down a career high payday (at the time about $3 million more than he had ever made for a fight) against a guy he and his fans were calling a bum if not to protect his zero? This is a guy all about making money, right? All it takes is a bit of plain and basic common sense to see that Mayweather cares more about protecting that undefeated record than even money itself. I'm sure a loss at some point in his career would have allowed him to grow the balls and actually test himself against the best of this era rather than just collecting easy paydays against the best of the last era...

[deevel79]

A loss has nothing to do with his legacy status. Facing top competition, and defending your titles against top/worthy competion does.

[Guest]

A loss has nothing to do with his legacy status. Facing top competition, and defending your titles against top/worthy competion does.

My point is he might actually fight the best if he didn't have an undefeated record to protect.

[CardioMonster]

i cant think of a single "great" fighter who had an undefeated record upon retiring (Marciano aside).

[DrewWoodside]

i have way more respect for people with losses, it generally indicates competition.

[THE REED]

how many more floyd topics could we possibly have... im not trying to be an ******* here... but seriously

[Guest]

i cant think of a single "great" fighter who had an undefeated record upon retiring (Marciano aside).

Marciano's resume isn't great. It is just like Mayweather's: a few solid contenders mixed in with faded, name fighters.

[deevel79]

My point is he might actually fight the best if he didn't have an undefeated record to protect.

Ok. So you're basically saying that since he's undeafeated, and on top of the boxing world right now, he doesnt feel the need to take risks. He doesnt have that hunger that another up and coming champ would have. I get it.

[Silencers]

He doesn't need a loss, he needs adversity and in order to get that adversity, he has to fight the top guys. If a loss comes from that adversity and he comes back stronger than he was before, then it'll help his legacy.

[CardioMonster]

Marciano's resume isn't great. It is just like Mayweather's: a few solid contenders mixed in with faded, name fighters.

I agree, but some people like to call Marciano great because he fought everyone who was around at the time whereas Mayweather has not (yet).