Which career "0" was the most difficult accomplishment?

This content is protected

This content is protected

Why phrase it this way some might ask? Because I think to a large unfortunate extent to remain undefeated (which happens so rarely) means more than just the fighter himself but the "support" that gives such advantages as:

- determining when difficult opponents are fought,
- site selection (where the fight occurs - at "home" or on neutral grounds),
- controlling the promotion,
- dictating the terms,
- and even affecting outcomes.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Most fighters do not finish a career undefeated. Fighters have off nights, some are matched against better quality opponents or fight in tougher more competitive eras, or move up to higher weights, and finally, many keep chasing paychecks up until an advanced age when father time provides a final reality check instead.

It is clear that while there are lots of fights that differ in the eyes of the beholder, most of the time it is at least apparent who won and who lost. But, the importance placed upon remaining undefeated as long as possible or, similarly, in keeping one's belt or title is often immense.

An unexpected setback means less money in the next fight (for the fighter, promoter, belt orgs, networks, advertisers, venues, etc.) and a delay of months or longer in certain proposed future matchups everyone was counting on to occur.

So, there are many fights which have blatantly bad scorecards from a judge (or even two) that stand out to the viewer as being something far less than above board. Is it simply the "eye of the beholder"? Or, relatedly, there are referees that are certainly less than impartial that interject, interrupt, and quickly halt fights when it seems quite unnecessary. How can this happen? It seems clear that 95% of time when a fighter is stopped prematurely beyond reason or the cards are overly skewed he was not the fighter with the promotion.

The promoters are putting on the event. Their capital is at risk and the success of the card or show and future cards or shows are foremost in the minds of all of those contracted directly and indirectly to work the event in various capacities (judges, refs, docs, bell ringers, announcers, etc.). The illusion of impartiality occurs as the judges and the referees are engaged by and responsible to an intermediary (belt org, state commission, etc.). How a promoter (informally it is presumed) requests certain refs and judges for events and is accommodated is less evident. It is regularly possible to have refs and judges assigned from a third country unrelated to the fighters who are not actually impartial at all (simply by virtue of a passport) but are aware of who was involved in punching their ticket, their pay, and accommodations to the event.

What is repeatedly evident is that in a fight of importance all "unsupported" challengers can expect to be on a less than level playing field if things go awry for the fighter with the promotion or support.

Everyone has their own examples to make that point. British fans note the actions of the ref in the Ottke/Reid fight. I might take the Miranda/Abraham fight. To my eyes, Randy Neumann was a corrupted official. Miranda was not expected to win this fight and there was no way he was going to garner a close decision in Germany. But no one could foresee the misfortune that befell Abraham to actually have his jaw broke on a punch. Suffering a terrible injury, Abraham was in dire straights. It was only the fourth round. Immediately, Neumann interjected himself into that contest. Abraham was in such discomfort he was essentially jumping backwards and turning away so that Miranda's punches landed low. Neumann sent quick warnings and deductions in volume at Miranda. Neumann frustrated Miranda and affected the fight. It was an amazing effort by Abraham and to get Abraham through eight rounds with a broken jaw and part of the "credit" was certainly due Neumann.

Of course, the British examples of wrongful stoppages and home cooking is equally voluminous and they would not attempt to defend the many atrocious circumstances that have occurred over there these past few years. Fighting any country's primary boxing icon in that country is going to make a fair decision difficult to obtain. There are examples in all countries - more or less.

To round this off, I don't mean to state that any such things have occurred with the undefeated fighters. This is generally speaking to touch on the corruption that permeates boxing historically. It is to try and exemplify or illustrate what a lack of support could mean and how with the right "support" there are many aspects to a career that can go FAR more smoothly and increase the possibility of success and especially the "protection" of a belt or title or record.

We see the strength and power in dictating terms to opponents whether it be the Klitschkos or Floyd Mayweather, Jr., today. Under their negotiating position many past greats might have had far less losses and certainly if transplanted to this era of less activity and more calculated direction. On the other hand, perhaps all or most of the greats of the past with gaudy records were examples of fighters well supported in their own time.

Of the undefeated, whose path was the most difficult or least supported relative to the others?

I suppose an aside could be which fighter with a stellar record (though not undefeated) can be considered the most accomplished for achieving that record under the most difficult or disadvantaged position?