The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[marbleheadmaui]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

[Fenster]

Are you saying Mayweather and Lopez are not all-time greats? They needed a loss to attain this status? Or they simply don't belong amongst the "greats?"

I think that opinion will be in the minority.

You can't compare boxing with ANY other sport. A loss in boxing is not the end but numerous losses most certainly is. Tiger Woods or Roger Federer could go years without winning but one great week and all is forgoten.

A fighter can only take so many losses before he becomes no longer relevant. Which means he doesn't even get a future chance of glory. Not only is his health at risk but his monetary value drops considerably. The "0" can be a great selling point - hence Mayweather-Hatton being billed as Undefeated.

[Kev]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

[Fenster]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

Good point. If Tiger Woods NEVER lost a game millions would believe he was Jesus 2. Or an alien or something.

Boxers only have a tiny amount of opportunity compared with other sports. You can play literally thousands of golf comps or tennis comps throughout a career comapred with only 50-100 fights. An undeafeated fighter, that has fought at the highest possible level around his weight-class, clearly is SPECIAL.

[erics44]

50 fights is a lot nowadays

[Kev]

Good point. If Tiger Woods NEVER lost a game millions would believe he was Jesus 2. Or an alien or something.


He would have had even more women queing up to fuck him

[marbleheadmaui]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

The inability to distinguish between what Marciano did (so completely wreck the heavies that it took 18 months after he retired to find a new champ the public would accept) and what Mayweather has done (not face anywhere NEAR the moist challenging set of opponents) is puzzling to say the least.

Thanks for the welcome!

[Kev]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

The inability to distinguish between what Marciano did (so completely wreck the heavies that it took 18 months after he retired to find a new champ the public would accept) and what Mayweather has done (not face anywhere NEAR the moist challenging set of opponents) is puzzling to say the least.

Thanks for the welcome!

Actually again I would disagree. I think Floyd's competition has been better than Marciano's. Marciano was a great fighter no doubt, but he didn't fight in a great era.

Either way, had Marciano lost he would not be regarded the same way as he is now. Still a great but his name is largely associated with his unbeaten record and when referenced it's usually in relation to that.

How much more famous is Rocky Marciano to the average sports fan than say Pernell Whittaker? Even non boxing fans know who Marciano is. Whittaker, despite being the better fighter p4p in the eyes of most knowledgable sports fans is not as big a name.

Had Marciano lost he wouldn't be any more famous than Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson. As he didn't I would suggest he is much the better known.

[JonnyFolds]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

Other sports: tennis, swimming, golf... These guys are constantly pitted against and thrust into the world level of opposition. On top of that, they can play day after day. In boxing I like that you only get 3-4 months to show up in the best form you possibly can for one night.
Any given day Federer will play Nadal; Woods/Mickelson; Kobe/L James

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

I think Floyd would have the same draw with his one loss in the past. The difference would be that the Castillo would have had another 12 rounds to try and upend Mayweather. That would have been more interesting than anything he has done >140.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

Some fighters take their losses and make light of it, Christobal Cruz has 11 defeats, Salido, Augustas? Losing does not mean you can't win your next fight, so I think the air of invincibility is only burst for an undefeated fighter if he is exposed. If someone lays a blueprint.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen.

Nobody cared about Akinwande. Only people watched LLewis' crappy fights were to see if someone would knock his block off again.

Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Chris John beat Juarez on the undercard of Marquez Mayweather. That was after the Draw. Since he is not calling out any featherweights (Salido/Gamboa/Lopez)

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

I think it more relies on how you fought and how you lost.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]All these guys are so past it. And we can see they do not have the talent that can upturn a division. Furthermore, I think his post mentioned nothing about Pacquiao. So I give him full credit for creating an unbiased post[/COLOR]

[Kev]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!

[IamInuit]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!

You mean their matchmakers.

[JonnyFolds]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!

If fighters want to try to win like Paul McCloskey, then more power to them. They are neither going to win fans, or, when they meet a guy with more determination than skill; He will beat them senseless.

Yes, in fact a fighter who goes out swinging is a fighter worth watching. I would not like to have to give up on my fighter after the 5th round of a 12 round fight if I didn't think he could put a guy on the seat of his pants.

Well how many Sultan Ibragamov fans out there? Yes, I think fighters have the air of invincibility burst at times after fights. But, I look to see how a fighter could improve, or even IF they can improve. Kassim Ouma will never be able to KO a world class fighter, and he lacks the speed and power to cripple a division, but he makes for interesting fights. And he is tenacious.

Trust me, I am not a fanboy when it comes to records. I like a good scrap as much as the next guy. Point here is, prospects need to be in real fights before too long, and I think records are overhyped. I like a record like Margarito's or Martinez'... a little hard to actually see what is going on in there. Makes for interesting betting.

[Spicoli]

Boxing fans learn to look behind the numbers. I think thats whats so great about forums in that you can probally name any fighter past or present and a certain fight can be pointed to as hotly disputed and a iffy call for the man with the "0". This is good to keep in mind when you say if you don't have a lose then your not tested etc etc. The judges may have mucked it up and the ref made terrible calls but keeping the circumstances 'in the know' is essential. This always gets me when I here some commentator run on about "so and so has never been hurt" etc. How the hell do you know, like you watched every single bout, round and so on when super bad was rising up in the ranks...off YOUR network and off the air. Way to much generalization.

The numbers ultimately can be superficial, a tag line and selling point of sorts. Certainly points at accomplishments and merits respect but its window dressing more and more. You see it with an announcer for example when a established 'super star' comes back from initial lose. Buffer does it all the time..." And in the red corner with only one disputed loss" or "One loss since revenged" etc etc. Just introduce the man, ya know. No foot notes necessary. Thats done for the arm chair fans and not so much 'hard core' types. Shit for all we know some of these divas have it inked in the contract Physically losing a fight can have a tax. Mentally its much bigger to come back from the more you are stroked and fawned over. Think this is where you gain the learning. Being humbled on a public stage can reveal much and a persons character...be it in the professional ring or getting your ass kicked in the school yard...so I've heard.

[marbleheadmaui]

Are you saying Mayweather and Lopez are not all-time greats? They needed a loss to attain this status? Or they simply don't belong amongst the "greats?"

I think that opinion will be in the minority.

You can't compare boxing with ANY other sport. A loss in boxing is not the end but numerous losses most certainly is. Tiger Woods or Roger Federer could go years without winning but one great week and all is forgoten.

A fighter can only take so many losses before he becomes no longer relevant. Which means he doesn't even get a future chance of glory. Not only is his health at risk but his monetary value drops considerably. The "0" can be a great selling point - hence Mayweather-Hatton being billed as Undefeated.

I specifically noted not to fall for the "do you need to lose to be great" garb age argument. I am saying what made Finito great wasn't that he was unbeaten, it was that he wrecked that division. Had he lost the first fight with Bufalo, is he any less great?

[Taeth]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

This doesn't always work. Look at Lopez and Mayweather and Calzaghe. ALl great fighters are undefeated. Sure I felt Calzaghe lost to Hopkins, and Mayweather had a really close fight with Castillo, but they didn't duck guys.

I think the problem is that people are never satisfied with what someone does in this sport, and Manny pacquiao is a perfect example of that. What hasn't he accomplished? And yet he gets criticized for taking on Mosley who stylistically could pose some problems.