It seems quite sad to me that fighters are cultivating careers based on being unbeaten rather than taking the top fights, i for one would prefer to see a fighter take all the top contenders and lose a few times. It also would mean that anytime a fighter lost it wouldnt be because they were a "hype job" or "exposed", but rather that they are taking the best fights out there
Being "undefeated' doesn't mean as much as it once did. Sugar Ray Robinson was once 40-0 before he lost to LaMotta but had already beaten 4 different former or future champs. Willie Pep was 62-0 , and was already Featherweight champ before he finally lost. Now the "undefeated" are guys like Tye Fields, who pull guys off of barstools to fatten up their records.
I just think a loss doesnt really affect anything with regards to legacy. And if a fighter can fight all comers and still keep a "0" than it is truely atg status
lmao sven ottke is undefeated and is basically doin what calzaghe did, hold on to a title for a decade, beat a bunch of bums, than start fighting old washed up elite fighters when your about to retire so can still have a moral victory with your fans if you lose
There arent that many bums on Calzaghe's list of defences....sure there are a few average fighters that were a gimme but he faced a lot of tough guys who wanted that belt from him badly
I lost some of the respect I had for CD. If he ducks Diaconu after his Tarver bout (I think Tarver's done.. shot enough for CD to win a comfortable decision) I will officially jump off his bandwagon. Adrian Diaconu is VASTLY overrated though, and I still think Chad would teach him a lesson.
i want to see dawson - calzaghe or dawson hopkins to see if he really is world class or just a stepping stone because those guys will sperate the elite frm the rest
Diaconu needs to work on stamina and late rounds workrate, if he does that he'll do well against Dawson