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

[jas]

"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.

[SeekDaGreat]

That's a fan montra imo. You can retire undefeated and fight everyone your supposed to.

Most people lose fights they would have won 9 out of 10 times. Because were human.

[Jcsuper]

Floyd lovers will vote No
Pac lovers will vote Yes

[Sugar Adam Ali]

In an ideal situation,, if guys fought the best everytime, and we didnt have cherrypicks and soft touches all the time, then yeah i dont think you will go undefeated... Guys may put together long win streaks but to go undefeated over an entire career fighting the best guys available is not possible

[DLT]

In an ideal situation,, if guys fought the best everytime, and we didnt have cherrypicks and soft touches all the time, then yeah i dont think you will go undefeated... Guys may put together long win streaks but to go undefeated over an entire career fighting the best guys available is not possible

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

[Tom Cruise]

Edit: It depends what opponents you would consider someone was 'supposed' to fight.

I think if you consistently push yourself to the limits of your ability in terms of competition then theres no way you escape with a perfect record.

Unless you are the best Heavyweight in which case you can, because if you are the best in your division theres no where to go (s/o Rocky Marciano).

I dont think a fighter has to constantly push themselves though. Theres no way Mayweather has to fight at MW but thats the weight I think he'd have to go to be beat.

[Vasyl’s dad]

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

So what you're saying is, if Julio Cesar Chavez retired in 93, you'd consider him the best of all time?

[DetroitFast]

I disagree, it depends on the fighter.

[The Problem Child]

Very complex subject. It goes deeper than boxing IMO. There is no such thing as perfection in our human race. We all have flaws and they are bound to show up at one point or another.

However, our decision making and intelligence can reduce the chances of running into problems. And what I mean by this is we humans are capable of finding ways around things and have the capacity to prevent putting ourselves in scenarios that would put us at a disadvantage.

Mayweather is a smart man, that is something that has to be pointed out. He is no scientist or genius, he is just a smart individual. He prevents himself from taking damage, he uses his intelligence to reduce the chances of getting hurt and therefore possibly beaten. He also picks his opponents wisely to reduce the chances of failure as much as possible.

He didn't fight Cotto during his prime, he fought him after the Margarito and Pacquiao beatings. He didn't fight Prime Mosley, he fought a 38 year old version of him. There he reduced the chances of being beat almost by half. He avoided Pacquiao and still does.

He is intelligent enough to point out if the moment is the most ideal or not, this is the mentality of a strategist. Every opponent he fights he sees vulnerabilities in that he can exploit which outweigh the risks and chances of failure. If you take a close look at his resume in the past 6 years, you will see fighters that fit his defensive/counter punching style perfectly.

He takes pride in this type of intelligence and brings it up quite frequently.

[DeepVoice]

If someone were to retire undefeated without cherry picking and actually won all those fights against A+ competition then he deserves my respect.