2 Much Hype About Undefeated Records

Mosley would be undefeated too if he had fought Corrales, Gatti, Hatton, old Hoya again, Hernandez, and Baldomir instead of Forrest, Winky, and Cotto. Mosley is the man.:good

 

I disagree

It's fantastic to have an unbeaten record. I'm sure there are others, but I'll use Joe Calzaghe as an example:

Joe Calzaghe has never lost a professional boxing match in 44 (FOURTY FOUR) fights

It gets better and better each time you say it. Have a go

 

agreed, and he better go down as a greater fighter than Hopkins, but I fear he will not. Hopkins took on smaller guys and chumps and priced himself out when he didn't fancy it. Mosley did the opposite.

 

Shane Mosley gets more respect though, and not just in the US.

 

No, no he doesn't

He gets more respect in the US, he certainly doesn't get more here

Congratulations Shane, you are a great fighter, and a great man, but you are not undefeated

 

in the 70`s when i first started watching and following boxing, it was actually very rare for any fighter to have a zero and many had been ko`d before they got there first title shot.

much tougher apprentaship then and all boxers travelled to all parts of the world including americans.

of course there were a few but they where in the minority not the majority.

there were also hardly any gimmee fights , i mean the real gimmee`s.

9 times out of 10 it was against genuine top 10 opponents.

 

Totally agree with RafaelGonzal, this obsession of undefeated records is affecting the quality of the bouts that we get to see.

 

yer well hopkins fought better opposition in fighters of FELIX TRINIDAD AND OSCAR DELA HOYA

 

but does Mosley get more respect from proper boxing fans in the UK? I would say yes. Or maybe I'm underestimating the bias people have.

Mosley would probably be unbeaten had he stayed where he was, in a comfort zone for years as Calzaghe was. Even now Joe has fought Kessler and that's about it.

 

No, he doesn't

The fact you think that people ought to agree with you otherwise they are biased just shows your own narrow minded views

Mosley lost to Forrest, whos hardly a world beater, so your theory doesn't exactly hold up

 

p4p that Forrest is clearly better than anyone Calzaghe has fought, with the possible exception of Kessler.

not narrow minded...just look at the lists of who they have fought. Mosley has always gone out of his way to fight top dogs...even moving up a lot to make the fights. Calzaghe spent too long fighting stiffs.

 

Not really, they just took different career paths

Scaling the weights is not for everybody. Mosley has the sort of style that allows him to do it. Joe has set his own records at 168, beat everyone in sight (and no they aren't all bums) and will move up to cap off a great career. Nothing wrong with that

Forrest is nothing like as good as Eubank or Kessler. If you move up in weight and take your share of losses, you have to be judged on them, and given as much critisicm for losing them as you do acclaim for winning fights

Mosley is given more respect in America, Calzaghe is here. That's just ****ing obvious, nobody is completely neutral, and if they were I'd question their passion. They are both great fighters

 

Calzaghe has fought Salem,Ashira,Starie,Ginamez and Pudwell are top fighters

 

well I strongly disagree that Forrest was not as good p4p as a faded and weight-drained Eubank.
I'm neutral for starters, I'm passionate about boxing...not about who happens to be born on the same patch of land as myself. I reckon a lot of UK boxing fans have more respect for Mosley, even with 4-5 losses on his ledger.