Are Undefeated Reords in Boxing Impressive or Overrated?

You just made the case for impressive.

If it is so not a big deal, why are Lopez, Marciano, and Calzaghe the greatest undefeated fighters ever while many people wouldn't include any of them amongst the 50 greatest fighters ever? ("many people" is not me)

Also, Robinson was then and is renowned now as the GOAT most for his incredible, seemingly invincible 128-1-2 run. It's not undefeated, but damn close with the only loss being to an elite MW he redeemed five times. Most people don't rank him as the best MW ever for a reason; because most people don't think he was. Now had he gone undefeated as a MW against the same opposition he fought? There would be no doubts.

 

Great fighter, but the strawweight division was a waste of his talents, had he moved up earlier and fought Carbajal or Gonzalez even taking a loss in doing so imo his legacy could've been greater. A shame... he clearly had the size and the skill to do so.

 

One good thing Marciano certainly never ducked anyone, he just happened to come along too late to face a prime Joe Louis and too early to face Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston or Muhammad Ali. Overrated.

 

Records can be deceiving. Example. Calzaghe was mentioned, yet Andre Ward has a better 168 pound resume than Calzaghe did, and in fewer years with much of his career still ahead of him. An undefeated record doesn't mean ****, if you haven't challenged yourself and fought anybody at their best. Sure Marciano showed that he could beat up on old men, and also get put on his arse by old men. Calzaghe also showed us that he could get put on his arse by old men, and a bum also.

Anyway, The 0 means something, if the quality opposition is there to go with it.

 

depends who you fought, obviously.

 

Agreed. I can't think of 1 undefeated fighter whose resume isn't widely considered to have holes in it. From Marciano, to Mayweather to David Rodriguez.

Especially in modern times, the 0 seems to be more a product of design, playing it safe, and careful matchmaking than dominance. IMO.

 

Off course Calzaghe is not in top 50 fighters of all times, anyone who puts him in top 50 is crazy!!!

 

if floyd has ray leonards opposition, he would be seen greater even if he lost a couple of times than what his current resume looks like.

 

I think with anything it should be considered "case by case". Sometimes undefeated records get more attention than the actual substance of the resume. Other times an undefeated record reflects both depth and substance. Case by case...

 

Yup. Mayweather's resume once he moved up past 135 leaves a lot to be desired when you look at the opposition that is/was available to him at 140, 147, and 154. He never fought the best available opposition.

 

yeah and if Floyd had Ray's opposition and went undefeated, it'd been seen as more impressive

 

Beyond overrated. Someone with a decent to long career of opponents with an undefeated record is 99% of the time a product of cherrypicking.


The only exception I can think of is Andre Ward. And a hell of an exception he is. Future top 15 ATG imo if he doesnt run out of opponents.

 

so it's really goes down to your opposition. you can have your "0" but it doesn't matter as much as when you have fought the best and lost a couple of times.

 

yeah but how about you actually beat that opposition though. Nobody is calling Corley or Augustus hall of famers

 

good point. if it was based soley on who you fought, Ricardo Mayorga would be a top 100 ATG