Why do fighters that retired undefeated get **** all over?

I’ve noticed it, Mayweather, Marciano, Ward, Calzaghe and even Ricardo Lopez to an extent, get underrated and dismissed to **** and it’s no coincidence, people aren’t hesitant to pick guys over them even though they always were able to find a way to win, obviously had something naturally, that unwavering will to win, which is a very hard attribute to combat, but people dismiss them, examples being that people are quick to pick Duran over Mayweather, even going as far as to say he’d destroy him, that Dempsey would destroy Marciano etc, even though they clearly had an unshakeable will to win, but no-one cares or takes it into account, the underrated record says something, it isn’t just a number.
Why is this?

 

I think a lot of dismissal for the "0", is in regard to some protected end runs to fighters careers. I think Calzaghe, for sure, could have faced a few more live ones in his prime

 

Well I'll give some examples of the names you listed.

Calzaghe = Was in a very weak Super Middleweight era and retired after fighting a completely shot RJJ. I think fans respect he had skills but his opposition and not willing to travel earlier frustrated fans.

Ward = Retired on a sour note after two very controversial fights with Kovalev and there was other very dangerous fights available to him at the time which some fans think he avoided by retiring.

Mayweather = Some people believe he cherrypicked some names waiting for the perfect opportunity to fight them instead of fighting them at their best. He's also not the most likable guy to root for outside the ring let's be honest.

Lopez = I don't think he gets much hate from what I've seen TBH it's just he fought in Minimumweight division and no disrespect but how much competition is there with fighters weighing 105 pounds ? He didn't move up sooner and fight the likes of Carbajal, Gonzalez. I think he gets praised for his skills it's just he was in the smallest weightclass of all time and there's no competition there.

Marciano = I think he gets praised alot it's just most of his wins were against older fighters he never actually beat a real elite Heavyweight in their prime so that's a bit of a question mark.

 

Typically when there are good contenders around you lose, those guys all swam shallower waters then there peer champions, Cal in particular has always rubbed me the wrong way, the personality, he’s a southpaw, he slaps, he’s a southpaw, his style is obnoxious, he’s a southpaw and his opposition had they been younger guys such as RJJ and BH they would’ve likely handled him pretty well, BH did on my card (from years ago) being undefeated is the cherry on top because I didn’t get to see a guy who annoyed me lose lol. Marciano and Lopez I adore, in particular the Rock he’s an icon to me, Floyd is a guy who I wish had (for my viewing sake) lost early on, maybe his 3rd fight or something - the undefeated thing was cool, breaking 49-0 was historic but I wish he didn’t care so much about protecting his “act” that we’d seen a few fights like Tszyu and Margarito - those fights didn’t have to happen, but I think if he was less of a draw they might’ve.
EDIT: Actually pretty sure Kostya didn’t fight him because he wasn’t a draw at the time lol.

 

Who would be the truest undefeated boxer post war?

 

At the moment I'm loving Beterbiev.

 

Not only that, but Cal was also left-handed.

 

I respect fighter's right to make a decision to retire from the sport at any time They chose. Obviously They don't owe us to keep fighting until They lose - but objectively, it's bad for the sport when a star retires without a loss, not passing a torch and leaving a "void". It also robs the top contenders who are around at the time from having a chance at a legacy win early on in their careers.

Plus there's usually pretty clear relationship between being undefeated and safety-first mindset when it comes to career management. Obviously fans are not going to look fondly at fighters who don't take the same risks and don't challange themselves the same way that other fighters do.

 

Usually it's their haters, cause they didn't see them lose and they really wnated to. No matter when you retire on top, you will have some people saying you ducked someone, even if you just beat them (Lewis for example). Coping mechanism.

 

Because they are undefeated.

 

Interesting take, we'll see how he ends

 

This. Anyone who retires undefeated almost certainly beat someone’s favorite fighter so they resent the undefeated guy for it.

Their guy couldn’t get it done so they wanted to see the guy hang around long enough to ‘get his.’

 

Bacause somebody going undefeated is UNATURAL and therefore raises valid suspicions of padding, ducking, cherry picking, back dealings, etc.

Real life is not a video game. Nobody goes undefeated in other sports. Nobody is that good.
Can you imagine Tom Brady never losing a game? or Messi never losing a match? Or Hamilton never losing a race? or Federer never losing a match?

Why should boxing been different?

It doesn't matter how great a fighter is. If his career goes long enough and stays honest, soon or later he should taste defeat: because he fought somebody better than him, because he aged, because he had a night off, because he slipped on a banana peel, whatever, any possible reason.

If somebody manages to go undefeated, that simply means that:
1) He didn't prove himself long enough of hard enough, he fought few fights and avoided dangerous competition.
2) When he fought he stacked advantages on his side by cherry picking, draining weight, biased referees, etc.

That is the reason why even great fighters like Marciano or Fairweather get an asterisks in their resume.
It is not that they are not legit, it is simply that they are open to valid criticism.

Marciano made just a few bouts as a champion, had a couple of close calls, realized he was in decline and left in order to preserve his legacy. Actually I think he did the honorable thing, because he didn't try to stay longer by recurring to fight tomato cans.
Fairweather avoided dangerous prime contenders like the plague and waited for Pacquiao to become a shell of a boxer. He was focused on reaching 50-0 and certainly used every trick avaliable to make sure nobody spoiled his record.

On the other side, you have champions like Ali who fought practically everybody and anybody, and therefore he is generally regarded as greater and higher than Marciano or Fairweather.

That is the way the game goes.

 

In the modern era a final 0 is associated with being a fraud, record padding and some sort of nefarious deception. Theres some truth to that but there needs to be a healthy balance. Opposed to elevating someone for fighting everyone and going .500 or something.

I agree we've went too far in the other direction but their general problem with undefeated or 1 loss records is sound. They just take it too far because undefeated records early in ones career is the expectation and thus if someone is still undefeated at the end theres this idea they never went up in class(talent wise not weight neccessarily).

 

Because they didn't fight the guys that would have beat them, at least not at the right time to lose to them.