People have went on longer undefeated streaks than 49 so why is that historical?

hard to compare Pac and DLH to hagler, leonard and hearns title fights
2 titles back then, no catch weights, no interims, no super or regular titles..... much easier for this latest generation to win and defend world titles when their are 7 or 8 titles per division now

 

I hear your point and it does make a difference, but it isn't so cut and dry either or.

The WBA formed in 1962, WBC 1963, IBF 1983, and the WBO 1988.

Hagler and Hearns fought each other for the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles. One of Hearns victories is for the WBO title.

The thing we can recognize with all of those names is that they were considered the man at many of the weight classes they fought in and they actually brought legitimacy to the titles as well.

I was quoting the best measure I could find, which is probably a better measure (world title fights vs overall fights) for comparing former champs post 1980.

If we want to throw in another wrench in the system then we can also talk about the internationalization of boxing and the number of participants at different points of time.

 

If he fights a D level opponent once a year his record is extended to like what 64-0 yet he gets criticized for padding it with bums, he doesn't bother fighting D level opponents routinely (yes he has had weak guys in Baldomir, Ortiz, Guerrero and Berto every few years but he's fought everyone else and they held belts except Berto, his resume is impressive and he cherry picks less than anybody of this era except Froch or DLH) to pad it out and he's told he hasn't had enough fights undefeated for it to be significant... he can't win Which one is it, you want him to fight more bums or you want him to stay as it is?

 

I think its about retiring undefeated

 

He lost to Castillo in 1 in a close fight and Maidana was 115-113 either way, I don't consider him undefeated and it doesn't affect his resume at all for me since he immediately rematched them which was the correct thing to do.

 

Oh brother the greatest that ever will be :rofl get off the crack

 

Undefeated, obviously

 

It's about him going to retire with that 49-0 record (if he actually retires, wich I hope but do not expect).

Thing is that in that case tying Marciano's mark is not that big a deal imo, because he didn't break it and Heavyweight is always held in higher regard of course.

 

it means jack****, usually fighters retire undefeated, with a few exceptions, beacuse either:
-they had to end their career early due to injury/prison/other reasons
-they avoided fighting challenges and padded their record to a beatiful x-0

 

You're an unfunny knob.

 

it really means very little today. that leaves us with the question of whether tmt is building a brand around this sales pitch because they are too stupid to know any better, or they believe that YOU, are too stupid to know any better. evidence on this board points to the latter.

 

Deontay Wilder. that was a padded record. Joe Calzaghe, that was a padded record. JCC's 1st 50 fights, that was a padded record. I fail to see how having the likes of JLC, ODLH, Shane Mosley, Pacquiao, Cotto, Corrales, Genaro Hernandez on your record can be considered padding. You can knit pick and say, this fighter was past their prime, or this fighter was this or that. Truth is you can do that with almost any fighter in history.
Hagler fought and beat a past his prime and 25lbs north of his best weight Roberto Duran. He also lost to a Sugar Ray Leonard who was coming off of a 3 year hiatus due to eye surgery. Does that diminish the value of those fights. Not in my eyes.

 

This, completely.

 

3 decades

Almost 20 years unbeaten

And its not like Floyd has been fighting bums. His resume is filled with ATG names.

Did Chavez Snr fight such opposition en route to his 89-0 record? Or Marciano?

 

yes, jcc did beat better opposition in his first 89 fights... he also fought more world champions.