Avenging a loss or a "0" which one better defines greatness or the best?

[PAC-BOY]

Very true and well said. I think alot of its a generational thing, Ive noticed since Floyds been on top most young fighters are all about protecting their 0, and Haymon tries to mimic the floyd (career) blueprint with his undefeated fighters. No one likes to lose, but I dont think a loss should automatically disqualify someone from acheiving all time greatness...

and it doesn't. Only in the eyes of the ignorant maybe. Boxing took on a play that an 0 is marketable if played right. Not caring about legacy or history. You will never see a boxer in the HOF being spoke of just because he made more money. SSR fought 5 times in 4 different countries in one month. Thats just to add to his legacy as an example of greatness. We can go on and on with Louis and Ali and so on. But fighters like Mayweater and Calzaghe and so on IMO accomplished nothing great. Thats not hate speaking thats fact. BUT...it can be argued between fans forever.

[PACBOY]

and it doesn't. Only in the eyes of the ignorant maybe. Boxing took on a play that an 0 is marketable if played right. Not caring about legacy or history. You will never see a boxer in the HOF being spoke of just because he made more money. SSR fought 5 times in 4 different countries in one month. Thats just to add to his legacy as an example of greatness. We can go on and on with Louis and Ali and so on. But fighters like Mayweater and Calzaghe and so on IMO accomplished nothing great. Thats not hate speaking thats fact. BUT...it can be argued between fans forever.

spot on!

[MurkaMan]

Sugar Ray Robinson did fight a lot of fighters who didnt belong in the ring with him and never faced the best black fighters of his time..only fought a washed up Aaron "Tiger" Wade....no charley burley, ezzard charles, cocoa kid, bert lytell, holman williams, lloyd marshall etc....Robinson fought between 147-160 through out the forties and fought none of them




the golden age fighters did not always fight the best....no fighter in history fought every good or great fighter close to their size, its not possible

This is the reason I feel that current day fighters dont get the credit they deserve. If Floyd, Pac, Roy Jones fought in Ray Robinson's era, its no way he would beat them.

He would be shocked that they exist. These fighters dont get credit for being lightyears better than Ray. Ray has a great record but against who?

I think Floyd is better. I think Pac is better too tbh.

[MurkaMan]

Alert Alert
We have a dumbass over here who thinks Floyd Mayweather is greater than Sugar Ray Robinson

You dont know a damn thing about Ray you can pretend Im a dumbazz but you only exposed yourself.

If it makes you feel any better, Pac would even destroy him and Pac is greater even though Pac dont have many good wins at WW.

[MurkaMan]

I can't believe i'm posting on this thread but oh well.

Duran, SRL, Hearns and haggler, fought the best at their weight even among them selves.
What good is a 0 when a fighter on a different era could have take that from you?

Hearns would decapitate mayweather if a single right hand landed and it would have If mosley landed it Hearns would have easier and that would be GN floyd

SRL was more charismatic in his time so that means that if it went to a decision SRL wins, and SRL has more POP in his fists than mayweather so how could mayweather win?

Duran WAS better version of paquiao yes i said that, so the pressure would have been much much worst than maidana.

The marvelous? well he was a middleweight not even going to say anything, although some NUTS HERE have posted that mayweather could have won, talk about a man crush lmao.

I say this because mayweather is NOT TBE just because he has a 0 PERIOD
And BTW I do like Mayweather he is one of my favorite "boxers" but he is not TBE

Mosley one of very few fighters who landed on Floyd. Hearns wouldnt do a damned thing, this dude lost to SRL who isnt half as talented as Floyd.

Floyd has faced every single style of fighter, and makes them all look flatfooted, clumsey, and slow.

But because Hearns is a past fighter, we sit and make up lies about how "He has a style to do this and do that.." Everyone has a style to beat Floyd until he gets in their and changes his whole style, and dominate them like its easy.

Sorry, but a fighter of that caliber cant beat Floyd.

SRL lost to Duran at WW, because Duran trash talk got in his head. Duran's best weight is Lw. At the higher weights, he was just a slow handed brawler type.

But Pac's whole career look like Duran at lw. SRL couldnt even land a jab on Duran dude. And what is SRL going to do? Beat Floyd how he beat Floyd Sr? Or like he did Benitez? I smell a mismatch, and stellar performance by Floyd on the horizon, because the only fighter in history that could even test Floyd was Duran, Pac, and Pryor. Pac is more sharper than the other two, and Floyd made him look like the rest.

So no I disagree on that as well.

The reason that Floyd is TBE, is because of consitency! Their is no fighter in history that can face his opponents at the time he faced them, and do what Floyd did to them for 17yrs.

Their is no fighter in history that can actually BEAT Floyd. I say that because of how Floyd makes every style, look flatfooted and clumsey. People used to make up lies about how Floyd cherrypicked flatfooted fighters. In actuality, Floyd was just making them all look the same. I have a hard time believing that SRL would do anything different. And I dont know if a 37yr old SRL would walk down Canelo without being touched like Floyd did.

Hagler might be too big for Floyd. But considering what Floyd has done in his career, its almost insulting to not give him the benefit of the doubt. All the skills, and whitewashing he has done.

I have to say, if SRL can run around the ring, and make Hagler look squared up, then Floyd can certainly do something similar because Floyd is better than SRL by far. Yea SRL is tall, but Floyd compensates by being way better!

[KnockoutNed]

It depends on the context. If you maintain a 0 fighting a bunch of handpicked bums then it doesn't carry much significance. Avenging a loss ALWAYS carries great significance.

[-PBP-]

See i really do not understand threads like this..are you saying fighters should lose on purpose?...If you fight top champs and win then you are great

Lol. Today I learned that Lewis knocking out Rahman is more impressive than going 87-0.

[MurkaMan]

It depends on the context. If you maintain a 0 fighting a bunch of handpicked bums then it doesn't carry much significance. Avenging a loss ALWAYS carries great significance.

Now look at Floyd. Fighting the best into his late 30's, and humiliating guys half his age and twice his size. I'd like to see a 37yr old SRL walk down Canelo at the time Floyd fought him, without getting grazed or touched.

Their will never be another FMjr

[Thread Stealer]

All things being equal, it's of course better to be undefeated and never need to avenge a loss in the first place.

The fighters ranked at the top of most lists aren't there necessarily because they avenged their losses. It's mainly because of what they did in their careers and the abilities they showed.

[-Kev-]

Depending on your resume, the 0 can be bad or good. If you fought top competition your entire career, and have HoF'ers and ATG's on there, then an 0 can be great. If you are more like a Sven Ottke then an 0 will go unnoticed.