Do we focus on undefeated records too much?

I don't think this place does. ESB classic is hardly full of Jimmy Barry and Floyd Mayweather diehards. If anything I think the consistency required to go unbeaten over a long list of top opponents is often underappreciated.

I do think too much attention is paid to unbeaten records for active fighters, especially ones who haven't fought anyone good.

 

Absolutely.

 

How a fighter rebounds from a loss goes along way toward assessing his greatness.

 

What I love is that when rating the modern fighter, any loss is held against them, but older fighters get all of the asterisks removed from the record.

 

This kind of response is warranted, in some cases. If a Boxer, who looks successful on paper, has engendered a perception of him being protected (i.e. their entire career and hype being based on mediocre opposition) then, in my view, they have actively set themselves up for a backlash when they lose.

If they're good enough then they can go on and progress towards greater success, putting the loss behind them. Failing that then it is likely they were 'exposed'.

 

Short answer is YES!

 

I think an undefeated record sounds magical, but the pursuit to have one by hook or by crook is not good for the sport, especially with all these associations (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO). The problem is that good fighters didn`t face each other any more, or sometimes to late. That is not just unpleasant for boxing fans, it can affect also the development of a boxer.
Also is such a record often not really meaningful. For exemple Sven Ottke retired officially unbeaten, but with some questionable wins by decision and he ducked Calzaghe. Rocky Marcianos first win against Roland LaStarza was apparantly controversial and even more his first fight with "Tiger" Ted Lowry. Also the first fight between Mayweather and Castillo was very close.
Obviously, no human beeing was born as an "invincible", it might be just sometimes a nice illusion. It´s okay, if people go nuts with such a record. Though sometimes it´s a greater accomplishment to come back stronger after a heavy loss. It´s also often more admirable and exciting.

 

A "series" of fights between two boxers is what I really like.

Saddler vs. Pep.
Ali vs. Frazier.
Zale vs. Graziano.
Bowe vs. Holyfield.
Ross vs. McLarnin.
Carbajal vs. Gonzalez.
Barrera vs. Morales.
Etc. Etc.

Somebody had to lose!

 

Absolutely the zero means far too much nowadays. Undefeated fighters rarely fight one another and protecting that 0 often prevents the best from facing one another. It’s what is destroying our beloved sport.

 

Yes. But it's not a new phenomenon. It just seems worse now.

 

Well modern fighters fight so much less. The older guys might fight again in 3 weeks or a month.

 

There was a time when if a contender didn't have at least 1 loss he wasn't ready for a championship fight.

 

This is common british boxing fans narrative and is false narrative in english language forums per se.
A. He had beated a lot of boxers previously beated up by Ottke.
B. Ottke fought only in Germany.

So there are big problem: if hometown cash cow is from US or UK, then he is not a ducker, he is GOD and good boxer for his fans.
If some Ottke affords to be in Germany like bunch with US or UK stars in their countries, this is not allowed?

Of course.

Bunch with boxers had beated boxers who previously were not able to beat Ottke in Germany.

Yeah, boxers like A.J or Canelo are good, Ward is cool, they all are Ottke versions only in UK or US.

Hate Ottke that he afforded to be A side lad always in the pro ring.

 

No question about it. Unbeaten records are rarely truly meaningful but it's the confusion between those records and the notion of fighting perfection that is the most irksome.