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.