First or Last

[MadMaxPowers]

All great fighters lose at the end of their careers, it's how the sport passes on the torch.
In the grand scheme of things, no one really remembers those losses or the ones at the beginning, they remember the epic wars. People remember Hannibal for attacking Rome and no one remembers the general who beat him years after his prime.

 

[BobbyD963]

At the end. If you lose early you will be known as a fighter that changed his game to be able to win.

Or known as a fighter who fought top notch competition early in his career before moving to a different organization with weaker competition.

 

[crowded]

In showbiz it is better to leave them wanting more than to have them believe you are played out. Go out on top if you haven't ducked any challenges. Then you're bulletproof. In spite of this we all know that Fedor would crush Anderson.

 

[valkyrieX]

I think losses shouldnt define a fighters legacy. it shouldn't effect someone status that is. Nobody talks about the fights Ali lost or the years Jordan didnt win. They talk about them at their best. They talk about the accomplishments they had as a sportsman. That is the most important.

This.

But to try to answer your question anyway, you cant simply say one is better or worse. It takes much more to assess which losses are worse or better than just whether they happened near the beginning or end of someones career.

 

[Fists of Fire]

lol is this a joke?

 

[gevoudane]

Feel sorry for the fighters that start out and have like one or two future HOFers the had to face. Just watched a fight and found out Ole Laursens first two fight were Genki Sudo and Caol Uno. Not to bad of loses to start with.