The importance of being Undefeated

:lol1: always excuses when Pac destroys a fighter who gave Floyd some trouble. Hatton was coming off of a good win against the underrated Malignaggi who we just saw gave Broner a decent fight, and fought Pac at his preferred weight of 140. But back to my point, assuming Floyd gets past Canelo, and Pac gets past Rios, why not face Pac who will be the biggest payday for Floyd? Typical delusional Mayhater. Lol

it fools the casuals and 99.9% of people that watch boxing can be classed as casuals imo

Bump good thread

The only importance of being undefeated is so the boxingscene keyboard warriors don't bash the living f%ck out of you.

Roy cleaned out 175, except for Darius Whogivesa****zewski. And that fight didn't happen because of both sides. Not much else he can do. But there were better opponents available, he fought Hill when he was, pardon the pun, headed down hill. Heck, Jones didn't have a meaningful fight at 175 till 1997 in Griffin. There was plenty of time to fight Benn, Eubank or at the very least Collins from 160-168. That's 4 names he skipped out on. There is no denying it, it happened, what the reasons were? I don't know but that was crucial in him staying undefeated. The exact same argument can be used for Marciano's, Calzaghe's and Floyd's undefeated runs. Honestly Marciano's run was out of his own hands, he didn't have the competition that previous champs Louis and later champ Ali had. With Calzaghe, he gets props for fight better names in the tail end of his career and unifying the titles. Some of those names are considered the best wins on the resumes of guys like Froch and Ward, more than half a decade later. Again with Floyd, he missed out on a lot of primed guys, retired, game back and has guys like Guerrero and Ortiz on his resume instead of Margy, Williams or prime Pac/Cotto. It is what it is. I'm not here to say why those fights didn't happen, I'm just saying it was an important factor of why these guys are undefeated.

Key word in my sentence was 90s, he beat a primed Toney and kinda green Hopkins, good wins both, apart from that what did he do? Beat Griffin? lol when Eubank, Benn, Colins, Nunn, Dariusz were all available. Correct me if I'm wrong but Daruisz beat Hill...then Jones fought Hill lol Listen I'm a huge Jones fan and he was one of my faves growing up but noway he remains undefeated if he takes at least a couple of those fights during the 90s. It's weird how post prime Jones actually started to take more risks. Roy cleaned out 175, except for Darius Whogivesa****zewski. And that fight didn't happen because of both sides. Not much else he can do.

their is no importance of being undefeated. having a loss on your record doesn't eliminate greatness from someone. how a fighter can except a defeat and manage to climb the ladder back to greatness, is superb to being undefeated.

Roy jones faught a prime. Toney, hopkins,griffin and Tarver. And beat a heavyweight champ . Thats not padded Key word in my sentence was 90s, he beat a primed Toney and kinda green Hopkins, good wins both, apart from that what did he do? Beat Griffin? lol when Eubank, Benn, Colins, Nunn, Dariusz were all available. Correct me if I'm wrong but Daruisz beat Hill...then Jones fought Hill lol Listen I'm a huge Jones fan and he was one of my faves growing up but noway he remains undefeated if he takes at least a couple of those fights during the 90s. It's weird how post prime Jones actually started to take more risks.

losses don't mean much at the end of the day..it's all about what you accomplish in your career..that's why you see guys in the HOF (the old timers) with a bunch of losses..people don't look at their losses so much but what they achieved in the sport. if this loss hasn't completely demoralized mares then he should be able to come back strong and put together some decent/respectable wins...and i'm not sure if moving down to 122 would be that great of an option since he has said before that he walks around 140-142 and even was thinking about moving to 130 in the near future...so not sure if draining himself down to 122 would help him at all...

That's a bit of a stretch. If a fighter is undefeated, it doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't taken fighters in their prime. It means they haven't consistently done so. And that's not to imply that being undefeated means having gone through soft opposition. It elite levels, "soft opposition" for people like Floyd is Guerrero. Right, which is where 'best available' comes in. Guerrero wasn't it.

If you are undefeated you simply haven't fought with the best fighters in their prime That's a bit of a stretch. If a fighter is undefeated, It doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't taken fighters in their prime. Heck, Amir Khan has probably taken more dangerous opposition (for him) and yet is probably less appreciated and makes less money than someone like Floyd. It's admirable, but at the end of the day, boxing is a business, unfortunately. And that's not to imply that being undefeated means having gone through soft opposition. It elite levels, "soft opposition" for people like Floyd is Guerrero. And while I'm on my soapbox and talking about undefeated fighters that aren't appreciated, the prime example is Timothy Bradley. Here is a guy who got a title on the road, fought 3 undefeated fighters back to back, went to Top Rank to get a lucrative fight against Pacquiao (who wouldn't?), and amidst the hate went out and banged with a puncher in his next fight despite not being a puncher. How can you hate the guy? He gets crucified for not fighting Amir Khan as if that eclipses all of his accomplishments.

What if you are that much better against your available opposition? Floyd is. That midget was not, not even once, the betting favorite againt Floyd at any point. Check the Vegas odds. And, he run away from advanced testing. It doesn't matter who is betting favourite, that doesn't give any fighter a right to duck and cherrypick.

Being undefeated doesn't matter. Abner Mares is my favorite fighter, especially after Saturday, not because he was undefeated. He's my favorite because he is what we want all boxers to be, fearless, taking on all comers, exciting, and humble. He has fought top fighter after top fighter and the only reason he didn't fight certain fighters is because of the "Cold War" besides that he fought anyone. He himself didn't care about his "0" he said it numerous times. It's partly because of the fans as well though, on here posters are so quick to write off a fighter after his first loss, if everyone was undefeated we wouldn't get great fights. I can't say how many posters I saw say that "Mares sucks" or "Mares was overhyped" after he got KO'ed by Jhonny Gonzalez. Cause he lost? Really? He knocked out Ponce De Leon, beat Anselmo Moreno handily, beat Darchiniyan, etc. How does he suck? One win doesn't define you, and one loss doesn't define you.

What if you are that much better against your available opposition? Floyd is. That midget was not, not even once, the betting favorite againt Floyd at any point. Check the Vegas odds. And, he run away from advanced testing.

Blame Floyd Mayweather and Joe Calzaghe for marketing the 'importance' of this mythical 0. Now every fighter wants to be undefeated after watching these 2 fight shot, old men and be proclaimed as ATG's

I think it's much more impressive when a fighter comes back to avenge their losses as Lennox did. With that said, I was really unimpressed by how Lennox ended his career without giving Vitali the rematch he deserved.

I respected Mares' undefeated record because he faced the best of the best, that's excluding Top Rank for obvious reasons. Before Gonzalez ended him, it was Agbeko twice, Perez (He won IMO), Darchinyan and Moreno, crazy line up. Andre Ward is another fighter worth mentioning. Same goes for Floyd currently, Mayweather has fought the best available opposition and after Canelo he's likely to face the Garcia-Matthysse winner. I don't really care for undefeated records, it does help promote fights but it's all about the level of opposition faced.

Like I have always said, some people are wined, dined, and seduced by unbeaten records and lose money in bets thinking unbeaten means unbeatable.

It's bull****, and so many fighters today seem to be obsessed with it. If you take on big challenges on the way up and throughout your career, the chances are you will pick losses along the way. Some fighters crumble after a loss, others come roaring back. It's part of boxing.

It's really not that important when your career is over and it's time to evaluate. No one is thinking, "well, he was undefeated so that matters more than looking at who they beat and when." I'm also of the opinion that most undefeated fighters have a questionable history of fighting the best. It doesn't mean they're fighting bums, but maybe not who they should have. The 0 is a marketing tool, though, and a very valuable one. That's undeniable.