Do you really give a Fk if a fighter has a '0' on his record?

every legit all time great has losses. it means you were challenged in your career, took on great opposition and your heart of the champion was tested because of how you came back from a loss.

I don't care if a fighter is unbeaten...it's who he fights not some padded record. Thoughts? I think casuals are fooled by these records yet us hardcore fans know whats up when it comes to resume. all the great ones has losses, no, it shouldn't matter. what's that famous quote about undefeated fighters that a lot of fellow fighters love to say? "SHOW ME AN UNDEFEATED FIGHTER AND ILL SHOW YOU SOMEBODY WHO HASNT REALLY FOUGHT ANYBODY." -Whitey Bimstein Its very true. If you look at every single alleged all time great that was undefeated, they all have question marks as to why they are undefeated: -Rocky Marciano. All of his notable fights were against past prime fighters. Should have lost to walcott when his nose was savagely ruined but mob controlled boxing made him undefeated. -Joe Calzaghe Enough said. -Ricardo Lopez Great technical fighter who really didnt beat anybody really good. Totally did a disservice to his career by not moving up in weight and challenging Carbajal, Chiquita Gonzalez, galaxy. People blame beristain. I blame the fighter. And of course floyd jr. whose best win is diego corrales (not even a legit HOF) and somebody who has yet to face a legitimate HOF fighter in their prime. No we dont give a fvck about undefeated records. Every single LEGITIMATE All Time GReat has loses. It means they actually fought great opposition and was tested in their careers. How you bounce back from a loss is the mark of a true Great Champion. See what happened to Hamed? Everybody thought he was the second coming with his flash and undefeated record. Never the same when he fought a legit HOF in their prime. BTW, casuals ALSO DONT CARE about undefeated records. That's a lie perpetrated by the mayweather crime family and their online minions. Casuals just want a great fight between two great fighters just like a regular hardcore fan.

if said fighter is fighting all threats(north and south of and including his weight) a/o fighters who believe can beat said fighter, etc then yes, because then his 0 has a lot more meaning to it....

no, don't care, look at the current fighters, say floyd? he has his zero but he has avoided pretty much every top fighter in their prime, hell he even retired to duck them. if they fight the best and remain undefeated, eg if floyd never ducked margo, pac, williams and others like a prime mosley or kostya, then it would have been a hell of a lot

Eh, undefeated records are like a great pair of tits, they look nice but it's usually just a bunch of padding, and at the end of the day it doesn't really mean sh*t anyway

Yes and its not casuals that are fooled. In boxing your 0 means alot. you can have a loss and still be bad ass but being undefeated means no one has beat you or better then you at the craft of boxing. There are some with 0 that you can say someone with a loss is still better but everyone wants to be undefeated and the best at there craft

Its not the 0, paper titles, divisional titles, super diamond regular belts, ppv buys, tv ratings... its who you fought and when you fought them.

SPorts is about winning and losing. In every sport the people/teams that win a lot and lose the least get celebrated. While I agree being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the best-its hard to say losing more frequently makes you better. IN every other sport the diehard fans of that saport celebrate excellence and give more credit to the winners. Only on NSB is it different.. Yeah I see your point...Just coz the greats lose a handful doesn't mean it contributes to their greatness and just coz some guys never lose/have never lost it does not make them better. But yeah, a lot of fans play too much into the whole '0' and how much it matters. A guy loses these days and he sucks...It's stupid.

in most cases its insignificant. ricardo lopez retiring undefeated was highly impressive though, as would it be if mayweather managed to retire without a loss.

I don't care about a 0. But unfortunately some people do...such as worshipping a well known boxer with a 0. Hmmm....come to think of it, they must be 0's themselves.

Look, it's fair to say that having an 0 doesn necessarily make you the best and NOT having that 0 doesn't mean you're not. Having that 0 puts you under greater scrutiny though. Just a thought, it's true that being undefeated may mean you didn't fight all the best. But consider this, Lennox Lewis fought pretty much everyone that he could when he could, but did he lose to the best? I don't believe so. He lost to people he should've beaten and beat all 50/50 opponents. Goes to show that being disciplined and focused means as much as standard of opponent in boxing.

Stop being a jealous *****.You are full of ****. You would care about being undefeated if it was a fighter you liked. You don't care about being undefeated because its floyd who is undefeated. You surely dont see posters like you criticizing Chavez SR or Duran for their undefeated records-and don't tell me they fought everyone because thats not how their records were built. You touted Manny going undefeated for 9 years without ever mentioning the opposition argument. He used the same blueprint floyd did-only floyd didn't get KO'd or outboxed by two mexicans. Face it-fighters are undefeated for 3 reasons: they win fights they are supposed to win they win the fights they are not supposed to win they win the 50/50 fights. You must not have seen these threads where I defend Floyd: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630872 http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=624239

I personally don't care. As people have already said, even the greats lose and often they lose multiple times. Look at some of the best ever, they don't just lose their '0', they lose a fair few times beyond that too. It doesn't matter. Quality of opposition should be considered a factor, although I do believe it is impressive for a fighter to go through an entire career and never lose to other fighters. That is a respectable feature of a fighting career no doubt, but quality of opponents and management are huge factors and you can not deny that when you look at the high profile names with losses over history. It is incredibly annoying though how these days fighters get promoted on never losing, and the '0' gets hyped up and protected (for lack of a better word) in order to improve the star quality and help promotions. That annoys me, coz it pulls in all manner of casual fanboys that think never losing makes you the Undisputed and Unified P4P GOAT... It is a fickle factor in this game. If Mayweather or Ward where to lose they would be wrongly slated and it would mark their careers coz fans these days focus on it, but if Marciano lost he would still be considered one of the greats....It is a stupid thing to focus on. SPorts is about winning and losing. In every sport the people/teams that win a lot and lose the least get celebrated. While I agree being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the best-its hard to say losing more frequently makes you better. IN every other sport the diehard fans of that sport celebrate excellence and give more credit to the winners. Only on NSB is it different..

I personally don't care. As people have already said, even the greats lose and often they lose multiple times. Look at some of the best ever, they don't just lose their '0', they lose a fair few times beyond that too. It doesn't matter. Quality of opposition should be considered a factor, although I do believe it is impressive for a fighter to go through an entire career and never lose to other fighters. That is a respectable feature of a fighting career no doubt, but quality of opponents and management are huge factors and you can not deny that when you look at the high profile names with losses over history. It is incredibly annoying though how these days fighters get promoted on never losing, and the '0' gets hyped up and protected (for lack of a better word) in order to improve the star quality and help promotions. That annoys me, coz it pulls in all manner of casual fanboys that think never losing makes you the Undisputed and Unified P4P GOAT... It is a fickle factor in this game. If Mayweather or Ward where to lose they would be wrongly slated and it would mark their careers coz fans these days focus on it, but if Marciano lost he would still be considered one of the greats....It is a stupid thing to focus on.

I don't care if a fighter is unbeaten...it's who he fights not some padded record. Thoughts? I think casuals are fooled by these records yet us hardcore fans know whats up when it comes to resume. Stop being a jealous *****.You are full of ****. You would care about being undefeated if it was a fighter you liked. You don't care about being undefeated because its floyd who is undefeated. You surely dont see posters like you criticizing Chavez SR or Duran for their undefeated records-and don't tell me they fought everyone because thats not how their records were built. You touted Manny going undefeated for 9 years without ever mentioning the opposition argument. He used the same blueprint floyd did-only floyd didn't get KO'd or outboxed by two mexicans. Face it-fighters are undefeated for 3 reasons: they win fights they are supposed to win they win the fights they are not supposed to win they win the 50/50 fights.

Curious. I enjoyed the books...but ain't caught the TV series yet. Is it that bad? Its f**king amazing!!!! Best show on tv

It's boxing, if you fight the best it's impossible to keep that 0. You think floyd would still have his 0 if he fought margarito 07, cotto 08, pacquiao 09/10/11/12/13/14/15, golovkin 154, Martinez 154 10/11 all after each other. Heck no. But I'll tell you this had he fought all of them and put on a great performance ( like he after all would do), regardless of losing 1 or 2 of those fights, he would be regarded much much much higher.

Depends on the opposition faced, it will forever be based on that. It's commendable that Ward, Mayweather and Bradley are still undefeated.

Hugh, read up ******.craveonline.com/news/319557-qa-angel-garcia The Garcias aren't in hurry to go anywhere. Angel is playing time with his son and everyone knows it. It's for the challenger to call out the champ. Danny would be the challnger here, and he is in no hurry. Stop using the "avoiding" term as loose as your wits. Second, Pacquiao's team wanted the rematch with Cotto. They wanted someone for Pac to look good against after two lacklustre performances. Cotto wouldn't play patsy and Pacquiao wouldn't move up. So that led to another fight with Marquez and nighty night time. Learn of thou speaketh.

not me larry lets look at two young resumes with the "0" still on it Javier Fortuna - Luis Franco - Patrick Hyland - Yuandale Evans - Victor Valenzuela - Cristobal Cruz Gary Russell Jr ???