The importance and/or relevance of a zero depends on a few different factors. 1; How long has the guy been fighting? I am very much in favor of slow and cautious development. If I had a talented prospect, I wouldn't start stepping him up until around the 20 fight mark. 2; How good was the guys competition? Calzaghe, for example, has a **** poor resume' considering the length of his title reign. 3; Who did he avoid? PBF, for example, avoided several top welterweights. Consequently we'll never know whether or not he deserves his zero. Show me a fighter with 35-40 fights who is still undefeated, and I'll show you a fighter who probably avoided some guys.
it would'nt if fans weren't so fickle the moment any fighter loses their first fight weather its Boxing or MMA than the "he was trash" he wasn't that good" "he was exposed" etc. comes then moment a fighter loses their air invincibility the public loses intrest which means their purses go down but its a two way street people love a come back story also so a couple of good wins and your on your way back to the top but the public will not let you live down a lost. people bring up Pac's losses in the Phillipines like they were in the fight right before delahoya the EM loss is justifible to bring up because he had been fighting pro long enough for it not to be overlooked, Iseen threads where they bring up the fact that floyd lost in the Amateurs, its the freaking Amateurs for christ sakes I even saw people doing interviews with a fighter he lost to in the amateurs like it was that fighters greatest life accomplishment was beating floyd as an Amature
i dont think u can ignore it no matter what the competition better competition the more credit u get but what i dont think fighters and promoters realize today is that a loss doesnt kill you as long as u make good account for yourself ala gatti i have huge respect for floyd and i think his competion is better than what he gets credit for but i gaurantee if he was to lose in a great fight with pac he would get more fan fare is if he just blew him out especially if he come back and one a rematch i kinda in the way i wasnt a tyson fan at all but after douglas beat him i gained alot of respect for him cause he didnt quit and went out on his shield guess it makes them seem human once they lose just like rocky there never would have been a rocky 2 if rocky won in the 1st movie everyone loves a comback
So some fighters like Hatton and nasseem hamed that were undefeated and lost only once or twice get no respect despite former achievements because they failed to make convincing comebacke from their defeats
it depends on who theyv faught i respect a fighter more for taking risk against the best fighters even if its a losing effort more than someone who just plays it safe aganst hand picked openents
it means more to the fighters mental edge than to fans, where level of opposition fought and beat easily trumps it
being undefeated is always a good thing. Fans are sometimish They love u when ur on top( and going by freddie roach - Cotto should retire who only has two losses) hate u when u lose. So in that respect the "0" is a good thing. In regards to the atg's they are recongnized as that regardless of their losses because hindsight is always 20/20, and at the end of their career we can analyze their accomplishments much better.
depends on your opposition . If you fight nothing but bums and tomato cans, being undefeated means jack ****. there are actually quite a few undefeated guys out there right now that no one has ever heard of.
no, not necessarily, because today you can very easily become a title holder without facing notable opposition
Agreed. Having an undefeated record has become a marketing ploy and generally robs us of some of the best available fights.
If Floyd were ever to lose this site would be down for days after being bombed with 'I told you so threads'. So in that sense, yes it is a big deal.