Why undefeated boxers are not always the best fighters?

You saying Those 3 guys haven't fought anyone good ?

 

It ALL depends on who you fought, and who you didn't.

Undefeated is fine, but I'll take guys who challenge themselves and lose some over a guy who takes the safe route and fights guys who never have a chance to win. You never really learn a guy's level when he does that. It applies to some more than others.

 

I truly believe people who think the best fighters aren't always undefeated fighter mean two things, one is, you've probably not challenged yourself, if you don't have a loss and two is, how do you respond from a loss. The latter is a sentiment that I've heard from fighters across different combat sports. There's this belief that a true measure of greatness is how a champion responds to a loss. I actually give a little credence to this way of thinking, simply because I've seen champion calibre fighters who were never the same after defeat. One that comes to mind is Meldrick Taylor, and although I don't totally subscribe to this logic, I do think there's some truth to it.

 

Damn mayweather fans must think ottke and calzhaghe are the best of all time son

Mayweather fans must the ray Robinson is a total bum, damn son

 

One thing that annoys me about inbred ***** logic is the blueprint thing

After a loss, for example- Duran Leonard one

Leonard changed his gameplan for the second fight

Now, ***** logic would dictate that the first Duran Leonard fight must be the blueprint to beat him everytime

You have to be a special kind of inbred ghetto hick to think like this

 

I call your bluff and present you with this unbeatable fighter: Adrian Broner.

 

At least he´s not beating up just on smaller fighters like GGG does. :roll:

 

Now Sconiers is obviously not a fighter destined for the hall of fame, but he´s always doing his job. Think about whom Wlad would have fought in his first 20 fights when there was no one like Sconiers. The guy does not deserve to be called a bum.

 

What I mean is that beyond a certain level, a loss isn't really going to teach you anything. Holmes lost to Spinks in his 49th fight...he had built up enough experience over the years that the loss didn't benefit him in any way. 'Sure, he could use the loss as motivation or seeing where he made mistakes or whatever, but as far as actually teaching him something new, nah.

 

can be easy being you these days, since you literally hate on black fighters and love white fighters.

and yet ward is 'half white half black' so where does that leave you? I guess you go with observable skin colour and so hate him.

but as global genetic mixing continues, how are you going to maintain your ludicrous apartheid based views? at some point you aren't going to be able to tell whats black or white.

 

Not all undefeated fighters are created the same CLEARLY there is a difference between Mayweather undefeated and C.John undefeated. Looking at the landscape Mayweather 5 weight champ beat the #1 fighter twice in 4/5 weights you can't fake that, Bradley cleaning out JWW moving up and beating 2 ATG at WW you can't fake that.

Guys like Broner, John there is not much stock in there respective 0's, due to ducking GGG is on this level

Ward is somewhere in the middle he's beat the best at SMW but there is only about 3/4 meaningful fighters at SMW. Just because you lose doesn't mean your great just because your unbeaten it doesn't mean your a fruad. People try to bring up the weakest unbeaten fighters they can think an use it as an excuse to discredit certain fighters when most of the comparison aren't on the same level

 

Being undefeated is a great accomplishment especially when you are consistently fighting at the highest level.

 

im suprised no 1 used Sven Ottke as an example, always fought at home and against week oppennts retired champ nd underfeated without really facing any 1 good

 

we try to avoid mentioning fakes like ottke on here, tbf.