I think if you lose a fight then you are a bum, which is why Calzaghe is the best.
Just kidding. It depends who you lose to. Sometimes a loss can be judged too harshly, sometimes not harshly enough, and that usually depends on whether we are a fan.
Take Antonio Margarito, his critics seize on his five losses, but three are basically meaningless, the Santos one at 154 is understndable, but the Williams one definitely 'counts' and raises some pretty valid questions about how good Margarito is.
I think if you lose a fight then you are a bum, which is why Calzaghe is the best.
Just kidding. It depends who you lose to. Sometimes a loss can be judged too harshly, sometimes not harshly enough, and that usually depends on whether we are a fan.
Take Antonio Margarito, his critics seize on his five losses, but three are basically meaningless, the Santos one at 154 is understndable, but the Williams one definitely 'counts' and raises some pretty valid questions about how good Margarito is.
Wow..........I agree with a Calzaghe fan.....**** a Duck.........Great post dutchie......And Ima Karma ya ass up for this one
i mean yeah having, and keeping an 0 is great, and ideal, but it is not the be all, and end of a great fighters mark. i just feel that so many great fighters who may have losses against other gr8 fighters is ok, and really does not make them any lower all time, or any less great imo! do you fellas feel that having a few losses, or no losses is a big deal in the overall picture, or not? especially if the losses came either early on or to other great fighter in close fights.
I agree with you completely. I actually started a thread just like this a while back "Losses should not be a focal point"
Losses are overrated, they just typically mean the fighter has stepped up and has challenged himself. Look what happened to Hatton and Dawson nearly lost his 0 because he stepped up (and btw, I wouldnt think any less of Dawson if he had lost his unbeaten record)
Comment