Originally Posted by Boxing Fanatic
0 to me. if u got an 0 its most likely because u avoid tough fights to protect it
I disagree greatly.
Did Oscar avoid tough fights when he was 31-0? Did Louis avoid tough fight when he was undefeated entering Schmeling I? Was Chavez avoiding tough fights until Frankie Randall? Naseem Hamed avoiding tough fights up until Barrera? Robinson before LaMotta? What if these guys retired before their first loss. Would what they did be diminished by having not lost? I would think it should be the opposit. Did Monzon avoid tough competition because he never suffered defeat after the first 20 fights of his career? Have Mayweather, Lopez, and Marciano all avoided tough fights to make their wins somehow diminished in any way? Is a win less significant because in your opinion other, better fights are left on the table? No. You judge what has been done. Winning fights are better than losing. Being undefeated means a lot. Just like how a winning streak is a big deal. It's just a winning streak which spans from the pro debut.
It's not misleading at all. Nobody ranks Calzaghe in their top 10, or 20, or 40 ATG because he was undefeated. Not very many people rank Marciano in their top 3 HW's. More people rank Mikey over undefeated Chris John at FW. If all of these things were happening at a mass level I'd say you're right. Currently, I believe people underrate being undefeated because there has been a few notable fighters to retire undefeated to join pretty much only Marciano and people don't really know how to value it. How is that more misleading than KO%, compubox, judges scorecards?