Adding Up 0's Stolen...

Boilermaker, you missed out my post above yours for Ray Mercer.

Also i'd like to add Nikolay Valuev:

1-0-0 Andreas Sidon
2-0-0 Yaroslav Zavorotnyi
3-0-0 Taras Bidenko
16-0-0 Richard Bango
24-0-0 Gerald Nobles
27-0-0 Jean Francois Bergeron

Total: 73-0-0

 

I am only up to page 5, it will get there, but i think it will take a month or two to catch up, if others dont add to it.

 

<- Jamaica Plain.

I'd say we should all plan to go to the next big fight in our area, but we don't get big fights these days.

This content is protected

 

How come some of these fighters have been added?

 

Yeah...next time there's a FNF or even just a pair of good names headlining down there we should make a plan.

I don't drive, myself, but would be willing to buy a few rounds of beer if we carpooled. :good





...oh, and what flavor popsicles? :think

:yep

 

Well today could have seen Susi Kentikian bring her total up to 49-0, as she was thoroughly outboxing 10-0 Arely Mucino before an accidental clash of heads at the start of the third caused a headbutt that ended the fight and forced a technical draw (which makes no sense, as Mucino didn't win either of the first two rounds).

As it is, she has a fairly respectable tally by female standards at 39-0.

Nadia Raoui 11-0
Julia Sahin 20-0
Carolina Alvarez 8-0-1

She'll probably grant Mucino an immediate rematch due to the weird and dissatisfying ending, and bump herself up to just shy of 50 collective wins between her undefeated victims.

Of course, Susi's undefeated herself, so if the heavy-handed Mucino were to get an immediate rematch and spring the upset, she'd be up there at 28.

Not to sound like a dick or anything, but girls' records are more like men's MMA than men's boxing - it's typical for even "elite" fighters to win barely more than they lose, and to have at least a loss or two early in their careers. Undefeated records are therefore a rarity, and I would imagine there are few lady boxers who boast as high a total as Susi, even without Mucino.

 

Tim Bradley did it! :happy

Luis Carlos Abregu 29-0
Lamont Peterson 27-0
Eli Addison 8-0

64 and counting.

If he lands either Mayweather or Alexander (assuming Alexander beats Kotelnik) in his next fight: that could potentially soar as high as 105 or 85 respectively. Yes I think he could beat Mayweather. :yep

 

Nobody has properly done Alexis Arguello. :-(

There have been three different totals offered (ugh...search function, PLEASE!) - 104, 106, and 107 - all wrong.

Ray Mancini 20-0
Ruben Castillo 46-0
Rey Tam 22-0-1
Royal Kobayashi 18-0
Mauricio Butrago 1-0
Julio Hernandez 1-0

That is 108, if my arithmetic is correct.

 

NO!

For ****'S sake, people. This isn't a hard thread to use, if you

A) USE THE ****ING SEARCH FUNCTION TO MAKE SURE NOBODY'S ALREADY BEATEN YOU TO THE PUNCH ON SOMEONE.

and

B) PAY CAREFUL ****ING ATTENTION WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT BOXREC. This is the second time in a week I've found a total where somebody includes a loss to an undefeated fighter (Frankie Randall in this case lost to Peter Manfredo Jr.) when tallying their wins over undefeated fighters.

Here's a tip: if you're on Boxrec scanning for the little red "0" in the loss column - TAKE A PEEK OVER TO THE RIGHT TO SEE IF THERE IS A RED "L" OR GREEN "W" AT THE END OF THAT ROW OF DATA.

God DAMN you people.

Nobody but Russell and I should be allowed to post in here.

Frankie Randall's actual total is 93.

 

LOL this is the Internet people are not going to bother to search though 250 odd posts.

Also, some of your info is a bit dodgy as it could be argued Chavez had already lost before he fought Randall, The Ring record books of the 80s suggest that is the case. Also including undefeated fighters with incomplete records also adds to potential mistakes...

Relying purely on boxrec as evidence does not leave a water tight case.

 

As to searching - you do realize that up at the top of the thread (right under the page numbers) there's a tool that you can click to drop-down a text entry box, and plug in a keyword to search the entire thread, right? Nobody has to scroll through post-by-post. EVERYONE - every single person who posts in this thread - should be using the "Search this Thread" function. It takes all of two seconds. You'll know in a moment that someone's either been done in the thread already - or not. There is NO excuse not to check. None whatsoever. This is the Internet - people should therefore be savvy enough to figure out how to click on something and then type in the last name of the fighter they're about to "add" to the thread to double check that it won't be a duplicate.

As to Boxrec - it's as reliable a source as we currently have for things such as this, so we may as well roll with its listings for now. If you have a better idea for how to check the professional records of a comprehensive list of virtually all boxers to date, by all means name it.

 

Who is going to bother to do a search before they post? This is meant to be a bit of light hearted fun, not an ordeal.

Boxrec is a brilliant site with many (probably) millions of hours gone into to make it what it is today, kudos to everyone involved.

But if you want this thread to be special, you cannot solely rely on boxrec, you have do your own research to clarify potentially unfinished records of certain fighters.

Of course 99.99% of people are just going to look on boxrec, because it is just a bit of fun, the same as 99.99% are just going to post their info on the thread without bothering to use the search function...