Is being Undefeated Overrated? Glen Johnson believe's so.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by JuanMa, Oct 26, 2009.


  1. frankenfrank

    frankenfrank Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,965
    68
    Aug 18, 2009
    depends on your opposition.
    for me being non-stopped despite facing the best opposition available is more impressing. but this also can't be said about glen johnson.
     
  2. Drunkenboxer

    Drunkenboxer Least Eligible Bachelor Full Member

    60
    6
    May 12, 2006
    Marcus Beyer, Eric Lucas, Sven Ottke (Whom he allowed to retire undefeated) and Anthony Mundine. Those were the guys holding onto the real belts while he clutched onto his worthless WBO strap and refused to leave his own backyard. Common sense says he's a better fighter than all of them, but now we can only talk about it because it didn't mean enough to him to go out and put it beyond any doubt. I mean, you like a guy with a "lions will" right? :deal You can fairly say that none of them were true greats, but neither were half the guys you listed.

    It's a fact that he did not clean out SMW the way B-Hop did MW. He owned that **** for years.
     
  3. FROST

    FROST Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,529
    76
    May 3, 2006
    Glen Johnson is right. Many of the past greats had some losses, even against weaker opposition.

    The bottom line is, if you fight often, and if you're fighting the best, then you're gone win some and you're gonna lose some. That's how it is. No shame in that.
     
  4. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    Oh, wait, the WBA 'ordinary' world title is a 'real belt' now? :rofl
     
  5. Drunkenboxer

    Drunkenboxer Least Eligible Bachelor Full Member

    60
    6
    May 12, 2006
    Oh, that's right. The highly logical "Super champion" thing. It's worth more than the ****ing WBO, I know that much.
     
  6. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    The WBA's 'super champion' might not be logical, but it's even more illogical to laud the person picking up the secondary belt as a 'real' champion.

    The only time Mundine held the genuine WBA title was after Calzaghe vacated it.
     
  7. Drunkenboxer

    Drunkenboxer Least Eligible Bachelor Full Member

    60
    6
    May 12, 2006
    Yeah, the triangle theory... The guy who beat the guy who beat the guy, right? While we're being sarcastic I'll talk about how foolproof that idea is. :-(

    My thought is, at least Kessler ****ing fought them, and although history will not consider him as good as JC I give him props for breaking that pesky european SMW stalemate by leaving his own backyard.

    As for your comments about B-Hop... You're embarrassing yourself. Some of the greatest fighters in history of the sport have made their bones against naturally smaller guys. Hagler over Hearns... Pryor over Arguello... Leonard over Duran... I guess those guys are pretenders, too, right? ;)

    Dumbass...
     
  8. Rooney

    Rooney Boxing Junkie banned

    7,654
    0
    Jul 31, 2009
    This guys is talking out his arse.

    We have had clottey v cotto, mayweather v hatton, margarito v mosley, froch v taylor, calzaghe v hopkins, and we nearly got to see pavilk v williams.

    There are plenty of good fights being made. **** we have mosley v underfeated berto coming up. :patsch:patsch
     
  9. Drunkenboxer

    Drunkenboxer Least Eligible Bachelor Full Member

    60
    6
    May 12, 2006
    Okay, maybe I was being a bit generous to Mundine by calling him a champion, but my point remains valid. The other three names were legit title-holders who managed to chuck title belts around while Joe protected his "0" and his WBO belt. And you've gotta admit, had he fought Mundine and picked up that WBA belt it would have strengthened his lengthy reign... Perhaps even added leverage for Frank Warren to coax another title-holder to get on a plane?
     
  10. RafaelGonzal

    RafaelGonzal Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,844
    13
    Mar 7, 2006
    The 0 menas absolute **** just look at the host of clowns who have retired with an undefeated the last couple of years .....
     
  11. RafaelGonzal

    RafaelGonzal Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,844
    13
    Mar 7, 2006
    will someone please pull this guys head out of his ass.....a ****ing fan who posts. Absolutely 0 objectivity.
     
  12. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    Ha. I like it.
     
  13. Finn73

    Finn73 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,322
    0
    Jun 22, 2008
    For a fighter it is very important to be undefeated. His self-confidence then is on a whole other level. He hasn't made the experience that someone was the better man yet and he is not sinking into self-doubt. I think it's definitely a psychological advantage. To loss the 0 is something special. Many fighters haven't been the same after their first loss.
     
  14. achillesthegreat

    achillesthegreat FORTUNE FAVOURS THE BRAVE Full Member

    37,070
    29
    Jul 21, 2004
    The Road Warrior he is. Pure and simple.

    The 0 means too much now. Problem is that too many fighters have invincible looking records but are not invincible in the ring. No one expects all these undefeated fighters to go undefeated. It's a matter of when! Guys like Floyd, Cotto etc They are in big fights and look devastating so you are always wondering when the 0 will go. For Cotto it went against Margo but he'd stepped up a million times prior to Margo.
     
  15. TheUzi

    TheUzi MISSION INCOMPLETE Full Member

    7,358
    0
    Jul 23, 2008
    Its not just the tv companies fault for building up undefeated fighters.
    Boxing fans are to blame too. The way some fans desert fighters after a loss is disgusting.