The "0", gotta Go! It means nothing but hype

Too bad he will be more remembered for the people he avoided more than anything. :deal

 

20 years from now, nobody will know who any of those guys are

 

They will remember him for ducking PAC then...

 

Nobody is ducking Pac get over it already!!!! ****ing Bull****

 

They will remember him beating Pac's ass and pioneering the up to date drug testing system in boxing

 

I chose option C

 

The way fans are now it does matter, it takes a lot for a fighter to come back from a loss now.

Whereas in the olden days where fighters were fighting every few weeks it didn't matter at all..

Personally I couldn't give a **** if a fighter has a few losses, if it means a fighter will take on the best opposition they possibly can then that's fine with me. By fighters being too overprotective of their 0's, the best fights aren't made.

 

But the worst is, I just dont know why he ask the question, since the choices you have for his question is not a choice at all. Either you agree to him or you are stupid... When you ask a genuine question and you want a good debate to follow you make your poll in a way that people can choose another answer than your own.

Thread fail.

 

definitely, overrated. u fight to take risks. thats what fans want. how can u get any good fighting ordinary fighters

 

Hidden agenda much?

Just because you hate Floyd Mayweather Jr, Rocky Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, and Joe Calzaghe does not mean they are not ATG's. They are the only four LARGELY SIGNIFICANT fighters to maintain undefeated and for that reason, people do everything in their power to justify their jealousy/hatred.

People CAN'T WAIT for Mayweather, Ward, and Bradley to lose their 0's.

Also, Donaire's loss was in his second career fight, so he might as well have a 0. The fact that he has only lost a four rounder in his second fight and being undefeated since helps make him one of the top 4 fighters in the sport.

I love how Mayweather changed the sport in yet another way: losses now mean much, much more than they ever used to and being undefeated is also a bad thing for your legacy.

You sure are one dumb mother****er...

 

Up until 1990 Mike Tyson was a duck because he was undefeated.

Up until 1971 Muhammad Ali was a duck because he was undefeated.

Up until 1996 Manny Pacquiao was a duck because he was undefeated and had yet to step up competition and take on Rustico Torrecampo (11-4-4) (L KO 3).

Up until 1943 Ray Robinson was a duck because he was undefeated.

Up until 2010 Carl Froch was a duck because he was undefeated.

DO YOU SEE HOW WRONG YOU GUYS ARE?!?

 

This thread is ******ed and it is created by a ******. OP should close his garage up and run his car.

Either someone is undefeated and a cherrypicker or has losses and faces the best competition out there always.

Terrible, barely coherent thoughts. 0/10

A record of wins and losses doesn't always tell the whole story. Being undefeated is a great accomplishment if you fought the best available. It means nothing if you fought nobody.

 

You can only reach your full potential after a loss. Because you are Not perfect. It showes you to improve your game and to become more dedicated and to learn all the time. A Champion is the One who can come back after a bad loss. Examples are wladimir klitschko, hopkins, pac, cotto, martinez, adamek, ortiz. Thats character and everybody should respect and appretiate that!!! There are only 2 of 100 who can stay undefeated, These are of course exceptional talents. Floyd, marciano, calzaghe, especially of they face Top competion. But a loss can destroy a fighter also