"If you retire undefeated it means you didn't fight everyone you were supposed to"

[Marvellous1]

As stated before, this kind of assumes that all fighters that lose, only EVER, lose to superior or equal opposition. That isn't the case.

[MisterHardtop]

ofcourse its possible. Have to be very special and no when to hang them up though. I dont think anyone wouldve beaten Roy Jones

That is the problem, you don't "think" anyone would have beaten Roy Jones, he left way more questions than answers. I remember speaking to him on a number of occasions and he would often get frustrated when I asked him about why he didn't fight so and so.

We may never know the reasons but the gaps in his career are there and can never be filled.

In terms of what Carl Froch said, I 100% agree...unless you have a weak or weakened division. Take Rocky Marciano for example, he came a long when the heavyweight division consisted of, and the best way to put this is, old men. I take nothing away from him as he is one of the best heavyweights ever but would he have stayed undefeated is he had come a long a few years later with Patterson, Terrel, Liston, Williams and of course Ali at the top of the division?

Rocky fought who he had to but it was a weakened division, in transition from the highs of the late 30s-40s and the 60s.

[tank17211]

"If you retire undefeated it means you didn't fight everyone you were supposed to" - Carl Froch

Do you agree? Vote and discuss with reasons either way.

Shout out to Weebler I who has it sigged.

Wow this a powerful statement and I have to say it holds merit.

For instance, whatever the reason Floyd should have fought Margarito, DLH II, Paul Williams and Pacquiao.

[Marvellous1]

Lennox fought everyone he could've. He lost to people he shouldn't have and beat all his top opponents. What's this statement got to do with him? He could very well have retired undefeated but the level of opposition had nothing to do with why he lost (as the rematches showed). My point is the statement is catchy but too simplistic.

[way2strong]

Lennox fought everyone he could've. He lost to people he shouldn't have and beat all his top opponents. What's this statement got to do with him? He could very well have retired undefeated but the level of opposition had nothing to do with why he lost (as the rematches showed). My point is the statement is catchy but too simplistic.

it proves that if you fight everyone your supposed to you will lose styles make fights and certain fighters avoid certain styles altogether