Would You Rather Have A 45-0.Record In A Weak Era Or..?

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

It depends. Is the 45-0 guy a champion? Unified or Undisputed? How many title defenses? Same question for the 40-5 guy.

Everything equal give me the 45-0 guy. I think that is the trend for boxing now. All of these fighters want to end their career without a loss. Makes sense because you'll probably make more money and take less damage.

 

I disagree here. Marciano fought Everyman he was supposed to as champion, he gave rematches to fighters that ran him close. Something Lewis did not. He also didn’t have to give rematches to guys that defeated him since he never lost. Lewis got starched twice.
H2H I would take Lewis and the size difference of Lennox’s opponents would most likely beat most of Rocky’s opponents. But legacy wise you can still make a case for Rocky. I don’t see it as concrete at all.

 

The sad view of modern boxing.

Stats are nice to look at.

A zero is nice to look at.

But it has to depend on who you fight and at what point.

If this fantasy comparison sees each fighter ending their career healthy, then the better, higher ranked guy should be the one who had more noticeable ability with the better resume and wins.

Like our debate last week, Mike McCallum was a better fighter than Joe Calzaghe, where he’ll always be respected more and will rank higher.

It’s no good having a big title reign and a zero, if most of your competition are low level/non world level guys.

If you apply traditional ranking criteria, then the guy who impresses over all of the factors considered, is the best, irrespective of whether he was undefeated or not.

That’s the key thing to look at.

Yes, the undefeated guy could be ranked higher.

But more often than not, it’ll be a guy with losses, but who’s done more overall.

Floyd Mayweather has a lot to answer for, with his image of the zero, especially to the younger fans.

 

Ability
Resume
Wins
Accomplishments
Longevity

 

What don't you agree with?

 

If I were a boxer I'd first ask: which run made more money? Legacy is nice but sitting on a porch with a whiskey in one's old age is better than mopping a gym out. Money being equal, then probably the 45-0 run in a weaker era. It means that I dominated those losers and came out of it with all my marbles still in the bag. Fighting guys like Duran and Hagler every few months is going to have you blubbering like a fool by the end of it.

 

Let’s say that the money was equal, and in both instances, they got out with their health intact.

 

Your statement that it’s a concrete example. I think it’s a debatable example. Using Rocky, a man that actually went out and fought the best available opposition of his era is not the choice I would have used. I would have chosen someone that did a little more cherry picking. I don’t wish to be pedantic or assassinate Lewis or Rocky’s career to push a narrative of one over the other. I’ve seen both men ahead of each other on different lists.

 

I'd like to be super good looking, and have Jones, Hopkins and Lacy's scalps hanging off my belt AND be unbeaten

 

Don’t also forget the scalps of Kabary Salem and Tocker Pudwill too.

 

Pudwill could have been an ATG but he got snapped like a twig!

 

I’d rather be 45-0.. getting your @ss kicked sucks, let alone five times