Would you agree if I say...

[aether]

We can't be sure how great a fighter is until he lose

[liam_48@msn.com]

not necessary because, what does it actually prove? that he has flaws and was beaten? i believe we cant be sure how great a fighter is until he fights fellow great fighters and then if he is successful we know the answer. The problem with most undefeated fighters they leave to many questions and unanswered challenges. Joe calzaghe for example should fight Hopkins again and Mayweather should fight a number of fighters really, especially Mosley and cotto to prove to us is he really as good as he says and as good has his talent leads us to believe. However Ricardo Lopez was probably the only fighter to leave no question marks that's what makes him so great.

[46-0]

At first glance that is an ignorant thing to say. Please explain the logic behind this way of thinking.

[liam_48@msn.com]

Well its the truth. I know everybody will leave questions because there are always going to be challengers out there but in Calzaghe's case there's a fellow all time great named Bernard Hopkins who he beat via a split decision that automatically calls for a rematch that's why calzaghe leaves a question over his "greatness".

[The Gully Gad]

Nah Great fighters can come back from defeats
but they dont have to lose to prove it in the first place...

[Joe2608]

In some cases, a loss makes a fighter better than he was because usually it exposed flaws that they needed to put right, for example Vic Darchinyan or David Haye.

But to say unbeaten fighters can't be great because they haven't lost is not right. Sometimes they haven't lost just because there isn't anyone out there to beat them.

[S A M U R A I]

Well its the truth. I know everybody will leave questions because there are always going to be challengers out there but in Calzaghe's case there's a fellow all time great named Bernard Hopkins who he beat via a split decision that automatically calls for a rematch that's why calzaghe leaves a question over his "greatness".

In that case, Hopkins' greatness should also come into question. But actually, it really shouldn't. Both are great fighters. I can't understand why people keep ****ing on about it.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

[aether]

i have always defined greatness as doing something what no one expected you to do. fighters who retired undefeated like calz, floyd, marciano are riding too much on the fact that they are undefeated. basing their greatness on that. these fighters also have a questionable resume.

being undefeated for me is the weakest basis of considering how great a fighter is.

[aether]

In some cases, a loss makes a fighter better than he was because usually it exposed flaws that they needed to put right, for example Vic Darchinyan or David Haye.

But to say unbeaten fighters can't be great because they haven't lost is not right. Sometimes they haven't lost just because there isn't anyone out there to beat them.

very good post. it is just that being undefeated usually means the fighter has a questionable resume or ducked comp.

give me a fighter who's resume was never questioned and was undefeated. you probably cant.

[aether]

At first glance that is an ignorant thing to say. Please explain the logic behind this way of thinking.

at first glance, youre all over calz' nuts.