Does a loss make for a better all round fighter?

[Ishy Aytan]

As has been noted by virtually everyone, it depends on the fighter. That said, coming back from a devastating loss is always the sign of a great fighter, and adds to their legacy in a way an undefeated fighter is unable to do.

True guys like Ali, Leonard, Robinson, Hopkins all had these great comback wins. This is something which really defines an all time great.

[GP27]

i think so...look at lennox

[Jeups]

I supose i have to agree with the people who are saying that a record with an '0' at the highest level of the sport cant be achived with out ducking some of the real challangers.
Personally i have more respect fighters with a loss to their name, boxers, apart from simply entertaining us, act as huge inspirations for many people.
Myself included. Its heartbraking to see them loose, but thats all worth it when they come back and prove themselfs all over again!

[IMDAZED]

Ive seen alot of people questioning the undefeated records of Calzage and Mayweather on these boards.
It seems lke people are not comfortable with a fighter retireing undefeated, questioning the fights they choose to take and their style in the ring.
Does retireing undefeated really mean a boxer was never truely tested?
Do you have more respect for boxers, such as Cotto (leaving aside the question of Marg cheatin), who loose at the top of there game but yet have the heart to step back in the ring and prove themselfs again?

Well that's a pretty general question - everyone has their own resume. But know this, I can't think of one ATG who retired undefeated. Maybe Ricardo Lopez? And as great as he was, I'm not sure I'd consider him an ATG. Either way, it's the exception and not the rule.

Bottom line, if you keep fighting great or even good fighters in their prime, you'll eventually lose one way or the other.