seems like these days if a fighter isn't undefeated he isn't good enough, modern day greats such as de la hoya, pacquiao, hopkins have all lost fights but came back better, a loss is to learn from, take paul williams for example, he got his butt kicked and thought to himself he cant let that happen again so he adjusted his style, he learned from the loss and has come back better than before, same could be said about margo, he lost to williams, he thought he was better than he actually was, since that fight he has come back better, he works the body more, had better footwork (believe it or not) and keeps a igh guard up, he also fights at a much higher pace.
a loss is to learn from, losses make fighters better depending on how they handle it.
its not so much that undefeated records are overrated, its that fighters with losses are severly underrated. nowadays people expect the best fighters to be undefeated or they think they suck. which is ridiculous.
having losses doesnt mean anything bad at all. styles make fights, and if youre really fighting the best guys, youre going to have losses eventually, no matter who you are. fighters with losses sure as hell can beat the hell out of the undefeated ones, thats for sure.
Undefeated records aren't as over rated as Calzaghe hate threads.
100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
Calzaghe has to be the biggest clown with an undefeated record..completely padded with bums..he's also a coward and I'm sick of it. Fans never get what they want from him because he's to scared to fight any threat.
I think that long-undefeated guys are more likely to take risks, both with their careers and in the ring, after their first loss. With the fear of losing their 0 gone, they can focus more on proving themselves in other ways than just their record.
Hopefully we will see that with Cotto, Taylor, and Pavlik.