Regarding Resumes - Do Losses Count?

Really? Undefeated Julian Jackson, Donald Curry, undefeated Steve Collins, Michael Watson, Herol Graham, Sumbu Kalambay, all those close wars with Toney to boot.

 

Everything matters and considering boxing is corrupt, are we really going to look at a "win" or a "loss" and leave it at that? There are so many controversial decisions and corrupt acts in boxing, you must factor in everything.

Let's say Golovkin gets the nod both times against Canelo; people are probably calling him the greatest MW of all time. Not that he is or would be, but because he is "undefeated", some fans will only care about that.

Me personally? I don't care whether he got the W or L against Canelo when judging him all time. It's subjective and up to people to decide.

 

Yes, losses do count. But I gravitate to the idea of "a good win > a bad loss". Otherwise some protected fighter that never figths anybody is the #1 guy. That said if a guy always gets knocked out it says something about his chin and if a guy only fights smaller men it says something about his ability to fight the big boys. Commonsense stuff.

 

losses can show intent by the fighter to fight the best fighters available, and that's never a negative.
especially if they aren't based in the US.

take michaelweski, ottke and calzaghe for example.
with well over 100 fights between them who's the BEST fighter who any of them beat who were in their prime?

 

I don’t know about anyone else but a guy could be 50 wins and 50 losses but if he beat Ali, Tyson, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, Holmes, Klitschko’s, Ibeabuchi, Marciano, etc etc in their prime. I could’nt give a sht about the losses. Clearly this guy is a beast when he’s on his game.

Losses don’t detract for me at all. When and who you beat is what matters. More important is how you win or lose.

 

I know. I was talking to the guy who said only wins count.

So you have to pretend he never signed to meet or fought Toney three times, or Roy Jones. Or that he didn't fight Kalambay twice. Or fight Tiozzo. The Jones and Toney title fights were particularly big.

Sort of guts a resume. You have to look at the totality. Not just wins. Like with Norton and a lot of guys in the Hall of Fame.

That's all I'm saying.

 

These guys can't stand McCallum. His resume continues to be underrated.

 

But you said what kind of names does McCallum have wins over that are hall of fame worthy? The answer is that he has many hall of fame worthy wins on his resume that even one or two would qualify him for it. Bad example used in McCallum as he actually has a number of notable names and isn't one of those fighters who might have no big names but a lengthy run at the top.

 

Very very underrated clearly. Man beat some legends and was avoided by the fab 4 for good reason. He's an all time great 154/160lber.

 

Also beat Jeff Harding

 

Winning or losing is not as important as how you win or how you lose.

Winning is better than losing, but losing the way smonin' joe lost to ali in manila sends you direct to valhalla the fast way. Just to put an example.

 

1a and 1b with Tommy Hearns at 154.

 

Alexis arguello lost 2 of his first 5 fights. Never lost a belt in the righ. Henry armstrong lost his first fight by KO.

I'm Mayweather's #1 fan. But he has hurt a lot this sport. Boxing would be a way better sport had mayweather lost his first fight as a pro, for instance. Goddamn that ****ing zero.

 

Manchester Utd in top form lost to lesser teams. Chicago Bulls in top form lost to lesser teams.

It’s a sport, you can lose. It’s so arbitrary. One foul goes against you and it changes the game around.

Ever played a video game? You can beat someone 10x and they might beat you once, it happens, banana peels happen.

I judge things as a body of work. I mean, the fact that you had a fight where you take 100 judges, 50 scores it for you and another 50 scores it for the opponent. You got lucky and got 2/50 that scores it for you. Is that really suppose to make the difference between being an ATG and not?

Floyds whole Schtick is undefeated. But if we arbitrarily had different judges on the night of Castillo and Maidana, he could have easily lost those decisions. Heck throw in ODLH in there too since that was an SD, there’s been worse decisions. He would be 47-3. He fought the exact same fights, still Floyd and as good skills as ever. But suddenly he goes from being TBE to meh because 3 old men fancied something else that night.

Can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

Unbeaten records look phenomenal, simply because they're so rare. Calzaghe & Mayweather did incredibly well to remain unbeaten.

I do think losses are more acceptable in certain divisions. Because of the nature of the beast in heavyweight boxing, where one punch can end things so quickly, losses seem to be more acceptable on records there, I think. Look at Chisora. So many losses yet still regarded a solid opponent to any HW in the top 10.