Tweet
Of course they do and why wouldn't they? Even though some might be pre or post prime when they lose, they still lost. Doesn't take away from their great wins though
-
-
Regardless of where your loss/losses comes in your career, i always rate a fighter when they show they can come back from a loss even stronger or beat the person that beat them. It shows real mental strength, character and is the sign of a great champion when you go from having everything to being nothing but you still have the drive to get back to the top.
Undefeated records don't impress me, i like fighters like Mayweather and Calzaghe but there's always been people out there who they could have faced but did not want to step up to the challenge. It's not even the fact that i want to see them beat, if you put anyone against Mayweather he would probably beat them, but it's more about the fact that he didn't want the challenge (Cotto & Margarito) and that shows a lot about him as a fighter, money over legacy.Comment
-
Of course losses count. If they didn't then how can you count anyone's wins? They had to defeat somebody. When assessing someone's resume you look at everything. Having a loss isn't the end all, be all, but it certainly has to be accounted for when comparing resumes.
I understand why OP made this thread though he could be trolling. It's because of the butthurt posters on here who whine about Mayweather's opposition and his "loss" to Castillo to downplay his resume while forgetting that Pacquiao has lost at every level of his career against a variety of opponents.Comment
-
Its not black and white
Close disputed losses are obviously more favourable to a fighters resume compared to clear losses
Looking at whether the fighter was in prime is important too
If prime roy jones lost to tarver we wouldnt be holding roy in such high regardComment
Comment