Why undefeated boxers are not always the best fighters?

They said the best fighters in boxing history always has defeats.

 

Invalid nonsense.

 

shut the hell up with this incoherent bull****

 

Damn another Mayweather bashing thread?

 

I'm not bashing Floyd but someone is telling the truth
(listen at 2:44 of the videoclip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz7sk9JpDJc&feature=player_embedded

 

Losses never kept the old times from fighting..................most undefeated fighters are undefeated because they fight nothing but bums, such as Wilder with 30 wins, 30 KOs, but with bums like Sconiers and most not even as good as that.............

 

Nate Campbell said if you dont have at least one loss you havent fought the best

 

Only losers think losing is good! What else can they say? I can understand with Pacquiao though, he's lost so many times he's used to it.

 

I'd say this is akin to the age old saying that you should get mildly injured at least once a month in training, because if you don't, then you aren't pushing yourself hard enough.

Of course if you're already on the top this doesn't apply, but it's like saying a fighter with zero losses may have never fought the best opposition available.

Could hold some water if you ask me.

 

what if you are the best :hey

 

best in what? cherrypicking

 

yep...someone has to be

 

in your craft

Who did Ricardo Lopez miss out on? :think

 

everyone on the planet wanted to see him move up 3 pounds and fight Chiquita Gonzales or Michael Carbabhal. These were the first flyweights EVER to make million dollar purses (and probably the last)
and carbajal and gonzales went to war 3 times and gave each other losses

 

You learn from fighting good fighters...........what did Ward learn from fighting Rodriguez?