What damages a legacy more? Consistent ducking or a "loss"

[hectari]

If you have a handful of losses, and tried to avenge them, you can still be a great. Even if you failed to avenge the 'L'. Some guys just have your number. If you're perceived as being pretty with your 0, and you lose, and you fail to avenge the loss, then that catasrophic. If you are percieved as having weaknesses, and duck on that basis, then that's catasrophic. If you're percieved with being too pretty with your 0 (or W / L ratio), and duck on that basis, it might not catastrophic, but that will hang over you forever.

Lennox Lewis is an example of a man who has losses but avenged them all.

[ThePunchingBag]

Every top 10 ATG with the exception of Marciano for the weirdos that put him there have lost a fight at some point in the career.

Being undefeated means jacksquat in terms of legacy. It does mean something in terms of marketability, but never in terms of where you are ranked amongst the greatest of all time.

[bojangles1987]

A loss. Fans these days will defend a duck to the end of days, so a loss is much worse. At least if you duck, there will always be people to talk about what you "would have done" rather than what actually happened.

[White_Knight]

Constant ducking while losing to fighters you don't duck.

[bklynboy]

A loss is worse.

Ducking would be worse except for the simple fact that so many people are accused of ducking, when it really happens its just lost in the shuffle.

I think fighters realize they're gonna do the time (be accused of ducking) no matter what they do, so they might as well do the crime.

There's so many boy who cried wolf ducking-allegations that we can't decipher reality from fiction right now, how can someone ranking the fighters in 5, 10, 50 years? They can't. They just look at the losses.

No. People look to see if the fighter cleared out his division. This was easier pre-1980 when a champion was a champion and not a belt holder. Did the fighter fight the best available in his weight class and if not why? Being one of 4 belt holders doesn't make you the best in the division - it makes you one of the 4 best.

[typeone]

A great fighter who quite happily takes the fans money, boasts about how much he has then when faced with a real challenge runs to the hills... I call that savage ;(

[boliodogs]

A loss hurts more than "ducking" because a loss is real and on that fighter's record. A duck is something in the minds of some fans and often not true at all. Look at all the Khan fans that say Mayweather ducked Khan when the truth is Khan never beat a welterweight and has done nothing to suggest he deserves a fight with Mayweather. A new fan ten years from now would look at the records of Khan and Mayweather and know Mayweather never ducked Khan because fighters don't duck other fighters who they can beat easily.

[MRCHOKEaMF]

Ducking. Almost all the greats have losses, its because they fought everyone.

No they have a loss because THEY LOST no excuses They Just lost because they werent the better boxer that night.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

of course its ducking.

retired undefeated fighters to this very day have ducking questions about them.

Ricardo Lopez despite his brilliance, talent, and physique decided to hide out in the rawandan refugee division despite great fighters like michael carbajal, khasoi galaxy and chiquita gonzalez above him that could have produced legendary fights.

Joe Calzaghe didnt fight anyone until they were in their 40s.

Marciano all of his notable wins are past prime fighters.

Svent Ottke?

Floyd jr? its been debated to death.

A loss doesnt mean anything if you carried yourself well and if it was against a fellow great.

Ducking accusations can haunt you forever. That's why Laila Ali's boxing career was a joke. She ducked anybody remotely threatening.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

A great fighter who quite happily takes the fans money, boasts about how much he has then when faced with a real challenge runs to the hills... I call that savage ;(

some people have the nerve to call him a warrior.