Is undefeated records in boxing impressive or not?

i watch that clip almost daily because of that song .. and finito is in my top 5 fav of all time

 

who they fought and when is all you need when looking at a fighter's record

 

NO.

Since usually being undefeated means to have been gifted of robberies or having ducked a lot of the more dangerous, but maybe less known, contenders.
Just look at peoples like Bradley or Mayweather : they are not unbeaten, they have been gifted of debatable decisions, and have actively avoided fighters that matched bad with their styles (take Mayweather: he RETIRED in the period Paquiao was at the top of his game, saying things like "i'm a coward, yes, but a rich coward", or the immortal "health comes first".)

 

Being undefeated is impressive but it has to be put into context. Who have you fought while compiling an undefeated record and more importantly who didn't you fight?

An undefeated record usually means a fighter has not fought the best available. Great fighters that test themselves again and again against the best available will lose. It's hard to stay mentally focused for every fight, even great fighters can have an off night and then prove their greatness by winning the rematch.

Ottke was clearly protected, controversial decisions, corrupt referees and never fought the best opponent available in Calzaghe. But he got away with it because Calzaghe was facing even worse opposition, held a lightly regarded title and was so poorly managed Ottke was usually ranked above Calzaghe.

 

Of course they are. They're usually the most attractive attribute in a fight and easily marketable to casuals.

 

There isn't a single fighter in history that hasn't fought bums or easy targets their entire careers.

 

depends on who they have fought or whether they are in their prime or not.

 

This poll is hard to answer, because of the way you look at it.
Being undefeated can be very impressive but we all know that most of them are undefeated for another reason then being such a great boxer.

Like already mentioned getting gifts, having partial referees, never leaving your country, cheating, ducking the best opponents or fight them above their weight or when they're only a shadow of their former self...

Most of them have one or more *s going with their records.

 

But how do you judge a fighters skill level?

Froch is slow, poor technically, easy to hit, looking at him early on his career you'd be surprised to find out he would be arguably the 2nd best super middle of his era and a respected world champion.

I fighters ability can only be judged by the quality of opposition he beats. We've seen countless talented prospects fall short, despite looking amazing early on and we've seen less skilled, less talented fighters become world champions.

 

Doesn't matter how many losses you have. All about who you have beat.

 

I'll gladly take losses on a guy's record if it means he has taken the risks, challenged himself and fought the best available competition. Of course it would be even more impressive if he were to have taken on those challenges and remained undefeated, but, unfortunately, the 2 ideas seem to be mutually exclusive.

The reason that fighters with "0"s still intact get ragged on is that nearly always there are names that aren't on their records that could or should be there. Challenges that could have been met, that weren't, regardless of why.

 

Limited poll. True answer is yes and no dependent on who they have beaten. 20- 0 against nobodies isn't impressive while mayweather has a very impressive record.

Common sense really.

 

0 doesnt mean much without good level opposition on your record!

 

It becomes less and less impressive over time. The mystique surrounding the "0" reduces with each fighter who retires unbeaten.

With 17 divisions and 4 "major" (using the term loosely) alphabet bodies, it's possible to forge a lucrative career fighting twice a year without facing elite opposition, before retiring with health and wealth intact. Certainly can't begrudge the fighters who do this, but they shouldn't have an automatic claim to greatness based on never losing in the ring.

Using Finito as an example, I would rank him higher if he had jumped a division and won a 2-1 trilogy with say Carbajal or Chiquita. In that sense, 2-1 would be much better than 0-0. Taking SRR as another example, going 5-1 over LaMotta is more impressive than if he had never faced him again after their first fight.

Unbeaten records are only good as the sum total of the fighters beaten. The "no blueprint" argument is pure sophistic shite.