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

If the zero or near to it is worth all that, then LaMar Clark came so very close to god like status - with an insane KO% comprised by a record consecutive KO run atop all that.

Note also that his losses only came at the tail end of his rambling, 3 year career, his last loss (= his last fight) being to no less than one Mr Clay/Mr Ali.

When ATGs are discussed, my man LaMar is left out of the conversation all too often: -

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/9367

 

Gottem!

 

Exactly, my answer would be what the difference the money was in both cases.

 

You really have to get off of this "non world level guys" when they did in fact fight for the world title multiple times.

 

Nearing the Jake Paul fight (or whatever you want to call that, lol) Mikey T said that he wasn’t worried about legacy and that legacy certainly doesn’t pay the bills.

Perhaps reading too hard between the lines but that comment possibly gave us a good hint as to Mike’s genuine commitment (or lack thereof) going into the fight.

IIRC, Mike made a cool 10 mil for the fight and was seen shortly thereafter partying right alongside The Problem Child.

 

It would depend on which elite 5 fighters I beat and who I lost to as well as the circumstances of the losses. If the era where I'd go 40-5 was a strong one where no one would realistically be expected to go undefeated, and I beat real killers, while all the losses were competitive against genuine greats, I'd rather go 40-5. If both era's are equal, it's far better to go 45-0.

 

In retrospect almost everyone is going to give a lot more credit to the undefeated fighter than the guy with a bunch of losses in his prime.

 

One of the biggest and most unfortunate differences between past eras and more recent eras/ current era. Back in the day if you were undefeated they said you didn't fight anybody, today they say you're God. I think the real truth is somewhere in between.

 

I’d rather be the one who made the most money and got out with the least damage.

 

So what?

Fighting for a world title didn’t make them world level guys.

That’s why the likes of the WBO got so much criticism.

They were sanctioning world title fights by putting in non world level guys to fight the likes of Joe and Dariusz M.

I told you that Joe defended his belt against 11 non world level guys.

Guys who never won a fight at world level.

Guys who were European level fighters.

 

They really wouldn’t.

Not if they were knowledgeable.

Not under those circumstances.

Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe, cannot and will not rank higher than a guy like Mike McCallum.

Look at Roy Jones.

He retired with 10 losses, including one to Joe.

Do you think Joe ranks higher?

Of course he doesn’t.

He can’t out rank Roy.

Not under traditional ranking criteria, with a number of factors to look at, as well as applying the relevant context needed.

 

Victory is all that matters.

This content is protected