Does being undefeated mean anything anymore?

Yes if you are:
Usyk
Beterbiev
Bivol

meaning if you defeated top fighters in their primes and on the road, if you take challenges and want to fight for the legacy.


That's why Andrade, Benavidez, Munguia... their 0 means nothing at this point

 

Fury to that list you gremlin

 

Fury has 1 Draw so his record isn't perfect anymore

 

It's more than well known why this fight was declared a draw. No one can stop the fans from having their vision or to see the corruption and/or the bad decisions. Plus, a draw still makes you undefeated - it's not a loss, is it?

Being undefeated means something only if you've faced some top opponents. Just that simple.

 

Yeah of course it does.

 

Name one top fighter than he beat in their prime ?

 

Oh, there we go...

 

People like you are why Fury is unbeatable. His desire to win is unfathomable. He cannot be beat.

 

Depends on who you fight.

 

I wonder, do the people who insist that the draw with Wilder should be considered a W also consider the W in McDermott I an L? And while Wilder's fangirls might have some weak argument that the defending champion with 2 KDs might have deserved the draw, well there is no such thing for the McDermott fight. That was just a corrupt decision.

 

It can mean something if the fighter's record is absolutely littered with the names of top opponents available in their division, or across two or three divisions in the case of lower weights.

Sven Ottke is also undefeated, and his record is far flimsier than that of Mayweather.

 

Mayweather Jnr still haunting people years after retirement.

sad.

GOAT

 

Cunningham.

 

The person who started the thread titled the thread as "Does being undefeated mean anything anymore?"

Having one draw and no losses still means Fury is undefeated (even if John McDermott probably should've gotten the nod in their first fight).