the impressiveness of undefeated records.

Correct.

The first thing i look at when seeing an undefeated fighter,or with a loong string of KO's is...who did that fighter beat to get to that status.

Then the arguments begin

 

Same. Undefeated records don't make that much of an impression on me. I save my adulations for those who fight the best out there, and provide memorable moments in the process. Guys like Pacquiao, Hatton, Cotto, Trinidad, Hopkins, JMM, Barrera, Morales and Oscar come to mind.

 

is there a frame of reference for this or just general speculation?
Of course there are always various degrees and sub categories of each.
If a fighter has had a lengthy title reign without defeat you have to consider the effort involved as being rather impressive - compare that to a guy coming up without a single title fight and an undefeated record may just be padded.
You wouldn't call Guillermo Rigondeaux 6-0 record... padded, or Dmitriy Salita's record before losing to Khan... impressive. Would you?

 

There are actually 0-10 fighters who are better than 10-0 fighters. Its all relative to who they have fought. The problem with undefeated fighters is we dont totally know what they are made of, and we never will, till they lose. If they never lose, well, I guess the fighter doesnt didnt have a "perfect" career after all. Ironically, you have to lose to gain dimensions and depth as a fighter to get closer to greatness and to be tested both mentally and physically when it counts the most.

 

A good resume with a few losses and alot of great wins agianst top p4p Comp is much better than a questionable undefeated resume. (Like My AV)

 

It's pretty much about consistency if they keep it at top level

 

Some unbeaten runs are really impressive, others not so much.
You see some fighters racking up 40-0 beating up stiffs with losing records and no will to win. But there also are boxers who defend their titles multiple times against strong competition without getting beaten even once. And then still it's the question; "did they really fight the best?".
Staying unbeaten is totally unnecessary, if you're good enough you will come out on top again.

And there's always a mediocre fighter around who has a great fighters number, who can exploit a weakness that others can't and beat a much better fighter.

 

I think in this modern era where guys don't like to take risks, an early loss can be a good thing for a fighter. It can force them to get better and take on big opponents sooner. An undefeated record too often ends up being nursed to some degree.

 

At the top of my head i can think of 3 world champions who retired undefeated

rocky marciano: Criticised for fighting walcott,charles and louis past their primes
joe calzaghe: HEAVILY criticised due to lack of credible opponents
Floyd Mayweather: Criticised recently due to his lack of consistently good opponents at 147

Looking at those 3 examples, its easy to be skeptic at the level of oppostion those guys fought. At the end of the day, boxing fans will rinse and **** on any undefeated record.

 

Hopkins for example lost his first fight, trained harder than ever, came back and managed to get himself into the elite level amongst Roy Jones Jr

 

not only at 147, floyd's resume at 140 aint good either!...

 

I think this topic goes hand in hand with the idea that if you have a couple losses or KO's that you are washed up.

Hatton for example. The guy has a great career and then two losses to the the two best fighters in the world.

He had just gone 10 rounds with Floyd and done OK until he walked into a perfect shot. Then, Manny nailed him with another perfect shot. That is a distinct possibility when you fight the worlds best fighters. It shouldn't be embarrassing, but suddenly, everyone is talking trash and saying he should retire and Ricky goes off the deep end.

:wtf


Then you see guys like Chavez Jr. with padded records going undefeated.

 

I totally think there is so much bull**** about being undefeated. Far to much emphasis on the '0'.