What's more important... who you beat or who you lost to?....

...when assessing a fighters greatness.

E.g lewis lost to 2 average fighters (avenged them both) but he also beat better fighters than say Vitali has. What means most when you rank a fighter against others, the guys they beat or the guys they lost to?

It all depends, and it differs from fighter to fighter. Losses and wins, and the details contained in them, determine a career and tells a storyline of that said career.

When Tyson lost to Buster Douglas, it wasn't an indicator that Tyson was a bad fighter, it was a showing that Tyson wasn't in his prime anymore.

Muhammad Ali's win over George Foreman is greater than any win on his record because of how much the odds were against Ali in that fight. His loss to Frazier is always a telling fight, because it proved that Ali had heart, and he had chin.

There are fighters that always come to fight, and no matter whether they win or they lose they put on a great effort. George Chuvalo is best remembered for his efforts against Frazier, Ali, and Foreman, and rightfully so. Sometimes, the challenge that a contender yields in a fight is the biggest concern whether than if they won the fight or not.

So, really, it is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim the BoxingManiac

It all depends, and it differs from fighter to fighter. Losses and wins, and the details contained in them, determine a career and tells a storyline of that said career.

When Tyson lost to Buster Douglas, it wasn't an indicator that Tyson was a bad fighter, it was a showing that Tyson wasn't in his prime anymore.

Muhammad Ali's win over George Foreman is greater than any win on his record because of how much the odds were against Ali in that fight. His loss to Frazier is always a telling fight, because it proved that Ali had heart, and he had chin.

There are fighters that always come to fight, and no matter whether they win or they lose they put on a great effort. George Chuvalo is best remembered for his efforts against Frazier, Ali, and Foreman, and rightfully so. Sometimes, the challenge that a contender yields in a fight is the biggest concern whether than if they won the fight or not.

So, really, it is subjective.

---

Nice post mate



Petty that the the 63 people that viewed it couldn't be arsed to write anything. I give up!!!

Haha, not a lot to add to Slim's post really, it all depends on the fighters and where they are in there career. In any case where you could make the arguement that a boxers best opponent beat him it is obviously going to hurt their standing, unless they are the perrenial contender type. For instance, Naseem Hamed never faced a better opponent than Barrera, and the manner of his loss in that one plus retiring afterwards makes it dead easy for anyone to assert that he was never as good as he was. Roy Jones scraping it so close to Tarver and the losing to him after so many years without a really live opponent(in hindsight) hurt his legacy the same way, etc etc.
Or take Shane Mosley, for instance. If he had just retired a few years ago he would forever be in the fantasy matchup debates with current welters like Floyd or Manny. Tonnes of people would probably still be talking about how he would've whipped them both. Now whether that were true or not it doesn't matter because and OLD MOsley has gone and embaressed himself against the pair of them.

Good question.

My gut instinct says that you can tell more about a fighter by who the lose to. But, on reflection, no one ever seems to care about who beat you, you will only get remembered for who you beat.

You can take any big name and we all gloss over the people that beat them.

Manny Pac- Rustico Torrecampo, probably owns a nacho van somewhere now, beat a legend, but no one cares and no one looks at Manny any worse because of it

Tyson
Lewis
Kilt
Ali

You could go on with any great fighter, we don't care who they lost to, it's all about who they beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

Good question.
You could go on with any great fighter, we don't care who they lost to, it's all about who they beat.

---

Good point this actually!

Ya take Hatton for example, got beat by the two best P4P fighters in the modern age, yet he gets battered from pillar to post by many on here for who he fought.

Good points, I phone won't do it justice right now but I'd also say that the when and the how rank right alongside. I mean how many times is a loss sighted and the first thing is well so an so was green...or he was shot. There is merit to both but not always. It's really all fight by fight, sometimes it's just glossed over in generalities. Add, I think fighting the best available, maxing yourself, regardless of being falling just short is heads above beating a hundred also rans and only proving your just good enough to sit at the head of their table.

Everyone automatically looks at the fighters loss record, so I think that matters more. It can depend when they fought the fighters they lost too. Ali lost to Berbick at the end of his career, should not be held against Ali.

Its who you beat for sure. No question.

No one cares that Vitali loss to Ross Purity or Chris Byrd, not now anyway. His wins have put those defeats in the rear view mirror.

When people think about Aaron Pryor they don't immediately look at him losing to an unknown fighter at the end of his career.

Duran is not remembered for losing to Kirkland Laing, or Pat Lawler.

Tex Cobb is remembered for fighting his ass off against Larry Holmes, and beating Earnie Shavers. He is not remembered for being KO'd by a journeymen.

A fighter's wins define him, not his losses.

In Tex Cobb's case I guess he is remembered for a loss actually to Holmes ;D

Another thing to add. Why do heavyweights have the exclusive right to dismiss a knockout loss just because they are a heavyweight?

Hear it time and time again, 'This is heavyweight boxing, only takes one' etc

Why does 'This is light middleweight boxing' not have the same ring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Its who you beat for sure. No question.

No one cares that Vitali loss to Ross Purity or Chris Byrd, not now anyway. His wins have put those defeats in the rear view mirror.

When people think about Aaron Pryor they don't immediately look at him losing to an unknown fighter at the end of his career.

Duran is not remembered for losing to Kirkland Laing, or Pat Lawler.

Tex Cobb is remembered for fighting his ass off against Larry Holmes, and beating Earnie Shavers. He is not remembered for being KO'd by a journeymen.

A fighter's wins define him, not his losses.

---

That was Wlad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Its who you beat for sure. No question.

No one cares that Vitali loss to Ross Purity or Chris Byrd, not now anyway. His wins have put those defeats in the rear view mirror.

When people think about Aaron Pryor they don't immediately look at him losing to an unknown fighter at the end of his career.

Duran is not remembered for losing to Kirkland Laing, or Pat Lawler.

Tex Cobb is remembered for fighting his ass off against Larry Holmes, and beating Earnie Shavers. He is not remembered for being KO'd by a journeymen.

A fighter's wins define him, not his losses.

---

That was Wlad

---

Same difference ;D

Wlad has lost to a good number of guys then early in his career.

Damn near lost to Davarryl Williamson too.

It's definitely who you beat, then who you lost to but to a lesser extent. In a losing situation it's more how you lost, was it a fighting effort or simply quitting when the going got tough.

People should be remembered for their best against the best.

For example Vitali's era has been shite... So he will be remembered more for doing well and losing against an old Lewis than beating C class fighters. (sorry Lyle ;))