Sadly remaining undefeated is a massive priority for promoters and their pond spawn. to the point where they will spend a career fighting their level knowing if they step up they will get chinned (Crawford) Meanwhile Usyk is legit undefeated but is happy to risk it all for a challenge at HW (although it's always a good excuse to claim the opponents were always too big) and the BIG paychecks make it very worthwhile. The Loma -> Lopez -> Kambosis -> Haney, Zero killing spree was hilarious.
Yes the undefeated record is very important nowadays, but managers throughout boxing history have done whatever they could to protect their fighter's '0'. Why are they more successful at it today, if indeed there are as many undefeated fighters as I imagine?
Nope the others are correct. People fighting less often, so much prestige & tangible rewards attached to being undefeated, & easily documented careful matchmaking means that being undefeated IS at an all-time high. Why would you belive otherwise?
Well… there are a few genuine undefeated fighters that have put that 0 on the line and have shown exactly WHY they are undefeated. Yeah you aren’t imagining them. Usyk, Beterbiev, Fury and a couple others. But then you have other undefeated ones who are VERY picky choosey and that think the fans are as dumb as them.
If we're looking at the top boxers (like top-10 ranked by The Ring), there are obviously FAR more undefeated boxers today, than "back in the day"... for the simple reason, that world ranked boxers have (on average) far fewer fights now, than in the old days!
WOW and that's just the WW division?? Thanks for sharing that! I wonder how many undefeated records in all divisions there are? I don't understand your reasoning - how does the amount of fights figure into this? Don't you think that level of competition, is more to blame here?
Surely a boxer with a ****load of fights, is likely to pick up more losses along the way, than someone with very few fights? Shouldn't be too hard to understand - and yet you don't see, how the amount of fights figure into this?
Of course you're imaging it. Are you guys new at this? You can pick any year in boxing history and pull a bunch of undefeated fighters out of a pot and say "Look, nobody's fighting each other." Whose to say that collection of guys are going to amount to anything. Pick a year. Here. Start of 1991. Heavyweight. Undefeated fighters: Evander Holyfield (25-0), Riddick Bowe (21-0), Tommy Morrison (24-0), Ray Mercer (16-0), Lennox Lewis (14-0), Bruce Seldon (16-0), Gary Mason (35-0), Francesco Damiani (27-0), Lou Savarese (16-0), Michael Moorer (22-0), Phil Jackson (17-0), John Sargent (10-0), James Ellis (14-0-1), Corrie Sanders (9-0), Henry Akinwande (8-0), Herbie Hide (8-0). Frans Botha (8-0). And Mike Tyson had one loss (in the biggest upset ever). Was the division DEAD because there was only one loss out of that group of contenders and up-and-comers? Of course, everyone (Sargent and Ellis) didn't pan out. But many of them did. Was the division ruined? Was the sport dead? Undefeated fighters fight each other all time. The last televised US card of the year featured undefeated contenders Frank Martin vs. undefeated Michel Rivera. It was only a couple weeks ago. Did you forget? And the first televised card in the US this year features three undefeated boxers (Davis, Lopez and Ennis), two against each other, and Ennis is fighting a guy with one loss. Does everyone have to have one loss or more for you to feel better? Sometimes people don't lose for a long time.
I understand what you're saying but what about when the older fighters were up to the same amount of fights? That is the comparison I'm talking about. It seems like there's a lot more zeros today, when you look at other eras' fighters when they were early in their careers, fight-count wise. Maybe I'm not being clear, does that make sense? I was just throwing it out there, something I was thinking about, it seems most agree, so I'm not alone obviously. Do you have some kind of problem you sound like a cocky j****ff
You're the one who asked me directly to respond to that list. So I posted a list to show you're imagining it. If you feel dumb now, that's on you. You can grab a list of undefeated fighters in a division from any year your choose. It's not difficult. I'm still trying to figure out why you and that guy think 4-0 Grabriel Maestre is trying to "protect his 0." He fought Diego Chavez in his second pro fight. He fought for an interim welterweight belt in his fourth fight. How is he protecting his 0?
