Are Undefeated Reords in Boxing Impressive or Overrated?

[bjl12]

Haters need to chill.

Being undefeated is IMPRESSIVE - no doubt about it.

However, being undefeated doesn't tell the whole story either. So it's not like if a fighter's undefeated they're automatically the shit. Because there are some fighters with a few L's that are better AND MORE IMPRESSIVE than some who are undefeated.

[luke]

you cant learn anything by fighting and beating bums, maybe it takes a loss to make a guy a better fighter 20-0 means nothing if you fight 20 tomatoe cans.

[Shogun Assassin]

Originally Posted by bjl12

Haters need to chill.

Being undefeated is IMPRESSIVE - no doubt about it.

However, being undefeated doesn't tell the whole story either. So it's not like if a fighter's undefeated they're automatically the shit. Because there are some fighters with a few L's that are better AND MORE IMPRESSIVE than some who are undefeated.

This.

SRL's loss to Duran has been mentioned but that fight did as much for Leonard's legacy as any other win did, that was the first time Sugar displayed his toughness and balls by trading with a living legend for 15 rounds in one of the greatest fights ever, and how he came back to make a mockery out of Duran in the rematch, makes that win all the more greater.


0's are impressive, especially if they are genuine (like Floyd's and not Ottke's) but sometimes losses are needed to prove a fighters greatness.

[Big Left]

impressive, people can talk about the likes of Calzaghe, Floyd or Marciano fighting weak opposition but it would take a special fighter to follow their resume and not lose once.

[ROACH]

It's impressive, but it's also overrated.

An undefeated record means a well managed career. There is always someone out there that can beat you.

The question is, do you take the fight? Since people today have such short memories, fighters believe their earning power will fall significantly if they lose a fight.

This is especially true for guys that don't have much marketability to begin with.

If they lose early, a lot of top guys will avoid them because there is not much demand from the public.

And a fighter can always say, "Why should I fight him, he couldn't get past (insert)."

[FilipMNE]

Originally Posted by Outboxer

Leonard has fantastic names on his record, though. If he'd only fought B level fighters his legacy wouldn't be half of what it is now, even if he was undefeated.

The names are more important than the zero.

Shame how many people do not understand this!!!

[Imperial1]

Originally Posted by Big Left

impressive, people can talk about the likes of Calzaghe, Floyd or Marciano fighting weak opposition but it would take a special fighter to follow their resume and not lose once.

Whats so special about Floyd's undefeated streak when he cherry picks ..Up until his lost to Sergio Chavez Jr had a similar record .There is nothing impressive about hand picking opponents !

[dandur55]

Simply overrated

there is always been taxi drivers, trash collectors, Chimney Sweeper, Tyre fitters, Weed Farmers, etc in most of the boxers records

[dm29]

It's only impressive if the unbeaten guy fought everybody, but if he fought some people and ducked some, the record is shit.

[FilipMNE]

If Floyd lost to Castillo(i had it a draw) revenged it and beat prime Pac(which he would if he fought him) plus Martinez and 154 i dont think his legacy would be worst than it is now, look at this way all the greatest fighters have losses and it doesnt take away from their greatness...Hagler Monzon Leonard Duran Ali Lewis etc all have losses Calzaghe doesnt have and there is not a single boxing fan with a brain that would say Joe is greater...

[millertime1367]

Both....I think the thought of losing the 0 is a detrimate to many great matchups...promoters fear a loss more than the fighter imo....undefeated is impressive no doubt but can be missleading at times....seeing a fighter lose and avenge defeat or lose and rebuild/refocus can be much more telling of thier quality

Lewis beat every fighter he faced...equally as impressive as a 0

[bballchump11]

Originally Posted by Outboxer

Leonard has fantastic names on his record, though. If he'd only fought B level fighters his legacy wouldn't be half of what it is now, even if he was undefeated.

The names are more important than the zero.

you're right, but I'm saying being undefeated isn't all there is to it, but it is damn impressive. No matter how you put it, being undefeated would help any fighter's legacy as long as they don't cherry pick or duck anybody.

Andre Ward is very highly rated because he's cleaned out his division and has been undefeated since he was 12 years old. If Ward had beaten the same fighters, but had a slip up earlier in his career, he probably wouldn't be held to the seem esteem as he is now

[Nonito Smoak]

Originally Posted by Big Left

impressive, people can talk about the likes of Calzaghe, Floyd or Marciano fighting weak opposition but it would take a special fighter to follow their resume and not lose once.

X 2

There would be very few who could do it...

[Nonito Smoak]

Originally Posted by Outboxer

Leonard has fantastic names on his record, though. If he'd only fought B level fighters his legacy wouldn't be half of what it is now, even if he was undefeated.

The names are more important than the zero.

But he didn't fight only B level fighters.

If he fought the EXACT same opposition, and beat the guys that he lost to, he would be even much higher thought of, and rightfully so.

[Brownies]

Originally Posted by Outboxer

The names are more important than the zero.

Close this thread, we have our answer.