Agree of Disagree: In re: to a boxer's legacy

[Ong_dynasty]

Me and my friend had a conversation about this and just want to know what you guys think

as weird as it sounds do you think that when a boxer loses and either avenges his defeat or get his "mojo" back is beneficial for a boxer's legacy?!
As everybody knows boxer's confidence is an important part of their make up and if you can get through a loss in my opinion highlights a boxer's mentality / heart
Also a problem with not losing is people will always question the level of competition that you went up against

Does it make sense..or is it quite silly and is it all about going undefeated?!

[Blame Rasho]

Um yeah... avenging a defeat is very benefical to a boxers legacy. It makes you a better fighter.

Think about Ali when he lost to Frazier... or recently when MAB lost to Morales, and Manny to Morales.

It isn't about going undefeated... it is who you face and how you performed in those fights.

I think it is very safe to say that no one looks at Mayweather and Manny record the same given that one cherry picked the fights he wanted and the other fought all comers.

It is quite silly to make a big deal about going undefeated. I mean Steven Ottke went undefeated in the same division as Joe Calzaghe and they never once wanted to fight each other for the fear of losing the 0.

[Ong_dynasty]

Um yeah... avenging a defeat is very benefical to a boxers legacy. It makes you a better fighter.

Think about Ali when he lost to Frazier... or recently when MAB lost to Morales, and Manny to Morales.

It isn't about going undefeated... it is who you face and how you performed in those fights.

I think it is very safe to say that no one looks at Mayweather and Manny record the same given that one cherry picked the fights he wanted and the other fought all comers.

It is quite silly to make a big deal about going undefeated. I mean Steven Ottke went undefeated in the same division as Joe Calzaghe and they never once wanted to fight each other for the fear of losing the 0.

I agree..but we were talking about a hypothetical situation in regards to Mayweather and how for his legacy as weird as it sounds. It would be better if he lost to Pacquiao first (so he will be able to validate himself) then beat him, rather than beat him straight because people will question how good Pacquiao was.

Do you agree?!I kinda agree but it seems like a flawed judgement

[Blame Rasho]

Well I think so because if he loses.. we can say that Mayweather was still getting his legs and if he were to rematch after he loses he would face an absoulte prime Manny and he would be considered on the downside of his career.