What do consider as a “ good “ record ?

Don't know that there is a number. It's all about context, which raw numbers rarely do justice to.

 

All depends on the level of competition. Too me, numbers don't mean much especially nowadays when promoters and managers pad records. I've seen plenty of guys with 30-0 records that have fought nothing but guys with losing records. Conversely, a guy like Glen Johnson has 20 plus losses but faced nothing but killers his whole career.

 

Yeah - I think it would be difficult to identify a 'good' record from numbers alone.

 

49-0, 43 knockouts!

 

The numbers mean little without the context behind them. Sorry I know that's not what you are looking for but that's how you understand the record. It's impossible to judge a record without knowing what's behind it.

 

I might be different but when I am watching boxing, I always check the records on boxrec so I can see the level of competition. I do it every weekend. I always take the record with a grain of salt until I see the level of competition.

An example would be Uysk's 20-0 looks a lot different from Frank Sanchez's 22-0. Uysk has beaten 10 current and former world champions and Sanchez has not even faced a top 10 heavyweight.

 

If I dont know anything about him …then I expect him to be undefeated…and then I wanna listen to why he’s not

 

For example….Every single time Vasyl Lomachenko fought …we had to listen Joe Tessitore explain why he had a loss on his record …every single time

 

A good record? Usually a high win to loss ratio, but in my opinion, they’re mainly tools to help promoters get fights made, tickets sold and secure TV audiences. That’s one of the things that makes boxing different to other sports…a boxers career is a series of promoted events that don’t automatically happen.
On top of that, career records span years and don’t really give a true sense of how good a fighter is at a given point in their career. I may have notched up 10 knockouts and zero losses over the last two years, but it doesn’t mean that when I fight this weekend that I’m a good bet against my opponent, who may be a big step up in class.
I often wonder how different it would be if the sport was based around tournaments, like golf or tennis, with fighters essentially having to win the title every time rather than getting the belt and keeping it.

 

Since we are talking about a good record, not a very good or great record, I would say that if a fight wins 70% of his fights he would have a good record. Whether that is 14-6 or 35-15, that's a good record.

 

I've always thought that if you take 30 fights as a standard base every four wins, or thereabouts, changes how good a fighter is. 29-1 is great, 25-5 is very good, 21-9 is good and so on.