Sergiy Derevyanchenko 16-6 Dereck Chisora 36-13 Maxi Hughes 29-7-2 O'Shaquie Foster 23-3 Botirzhon Akhmedov 10-4 Conah Walker 16-3-1 Ionut Baluta 17-6-1 (and for a journeyman..) Kostiantyn Dovbyshchenko 10-18-1
At least two of Derevyanchenko's earlier losses would have been wins with honest boxing judges, although he's faded now and clearly lost to Mbilli. He was robbed against Jacobs and Charlo.
Old Giants coach Bill Parcell was told by an announcer that the team they were watching were better than their record and Parcells said, "No they're not, your record says how good you are" Chisora is Chisora , he's as good as his record says.
I think a boxer with no loses can be more deceptive than the amount of loses. That list would be very long though.
If ggg and loma (my nr. 1 choice here) weren't retired I would name them. Both with undeserved losses. You could even name usyk as compared to almost any other fighter he has a higher density of opponents of the highest level. Career overall right now Chisora is a great choice. Fought so many great opponents.
I mean, yes... but also.... no. I see that argument both ways. In the sense that yes, a record is a record, 100%. Results are all that matter and a win is a win and a loss is a loss. The history books will have a win in the win column and a loss in the loss column. That's it... End of... Done... Dusted... The fat lady has spoken... But... No in the sense that, I don't think a record on it's own is the determining factor in "how good you are". There are so many nuances, circumstances, etc that factor into the equation. And if we take away the "almosts", the "did amazingly well but fell a bit short", the "if only this happened"s, then life would be boring. We'd all just browse on Boxerrec, see a fighter's record and gauge their worth/quality purely off of that. As with anything in life, there's always more to the story than that. TLDR; I see Parcell's point but don't completely agree with it.