Would Mayweather Still Be Considered Great If He Had a Loss?

[JK1700]

Say, for example, he had a loss on his resume. Is his undefeated record the primary reason people think he is great? I consider his boxing skills the peak of pugilism and don't think a loss would have made a difference. What say you?

I don’t understand the question. So you think people might only consider him great because his record? Obviously it’s mainly about skills since he’s the most skilled boxer ever. Of course the record helps it’s like a cherry on top of a cake. Him never losing and dominating everyone he fought (he dominated Castillo and Maidana in the rematches) is obviously a big part of his legacy since no one has done it for as long or against as many top guys.

[JK1700]

Hed still be an all time great with 2-3 losses

Exactly. It’s funny how people say being undefeated means everything to Mayweather’s legacy yet you have guys like Pacquiao and RJJ who have almost 20 losses between them and everyone agrees they’re ATG’s.

[Chuckguy]

Say, for example, he had a loss on his resume. Is his undefeated record the primary reason people think he is great? I consider his boxing skills the peak of pugilism and don't think a loss would have made a difference. What say you?

Flo mos like Larry x , pretty boy , and others clanour onto his 0

[Chuckguy]

Oscar
Hatton
Cotto
Castillo-2times
Corrales
Canelo
Judah
Mosley
Pacquiao
Jmm
Hernendez

12 time champ in 5 divisions

4 division lineal champion

defeated more world champs then anyone in history

IS THIS A SERIOUS QUESTION?

I love how you put jmm and pac on there lmfao

[DrHouse579]

yeah but the question should be how was he able to maintain his "excellence" very careful opponent selection is the answer. hes no hank aaron. please apologize to mr. aaron. longevity is overrated as hell in a sport where you can pick and choose who to fight and when to fight. quality over quantity always is better and he simply doesnt have the quality as other great fighters.

There's no way longevity is more impressive in baseball than in boxing. Are you kidding me?? There's hardly any wear-and-tear in baseball compared to boxing. ATG's in baseball almost always play into their late 30's and early 40's and play at a high level. You can count on one hand the number of elite level boxers in their late 30's now. Floyd's longevity is NOT an underrated part of his legacy...

[Chuckguy]

To me Floyd is great because of what he accomplished pre Oscar and like another poster stated he could have had 3/4 loses and would still be great

[Pigeons]

No, he'd be a bum.

[boliodogs]

I don't think it would change much. Many people already think he lost to Castillo. It is his skill in the ring that gets him respect and not his undefeated record. Ray Robinson lost 19 times and many consider him the best of all time.

[MurkaMan]

sugar ray leonard. ready to go resume for resume?

ok i got prime benitez, prime duran, prime hearns, near prime hagler, and lineal 154 pound champ kalule as a tune up. your turn! if leonard was floyd he would have waited for hagler to be ko'd cold. its all the same to you right? hes got the name thats all the matters!

Floyd's resume is allot tougher than SRL's though. SRL has greater names on his resume, however Floyd is 15lbs smaller than 80% of his resume. Floyd doesnt have power to hurt them, but he was so much better skillwise, he embarrrased them.

For instance, if Floyd and SRL were to trade bodies, and we put SRL at the same circumstantial disadvantages, Floyd was at, SRL would get beat df up. If Floyd had SRL's size, reach, and power, Floyd would've dominated and humiliated everyone SRL faced. You cant really say the same for SRL.

What Floyd did in the ring, is impossible to do. It makes no sense. This is why he is byfar the greatest of all time, and its not even close. Im just happy it went down in my era.

[Luilun]

The problem is he did lose twice Castillo Madaina fights and people still consider him great he just had Vegas help to keep that zero