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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

very true. Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

What if you don't fight everyone your supposed to and still have losses does this make you bad?

You forgot Sven Ottke and the answer is no, they all fought the best. I hope that was sarcasm

You are a Floyd Mayweather or Pacquiao fan aren't you? There are other KNOWN names to retire undefeated, Floyd is not the only. 1. Joe Calzaghe 2. Rocky Marciano 3. Ricardo López So are all of those fighters cherry pickers as well? Calzaghe fought bums for 95% of his title reign afraid to travel and Marciano only had 7 title fights and retired very young. Neither fought the fighters they were supposed to. Lopez shouldn't even be in this discussion.

in most cases, yes. there are exceptions though. marciano fought everyone he was supposed to, most of his fights were against terrible opposition to make up for his lack of an amateur background. he only fought at the highest level for a few years and mostly against smaller and/or aging opposition. but they were still the best out there and they were truly great fighters even though they were blown up and past their prime. ricardo lopez almost everyone, just one or two guys he missed out on. most fighters do that though, you seldom see someone who fought everyone carl froch included. they both have/had tremendous resumes though and lopez never lost despite the fact that he stayed on top for a long time and fought just about everyone. then you have guys like calzaghe and harry simon who simply didnt make nearly all the fights they should have and to whom frochs statement certainly applies. it doesnt apply to everyone though as ive already stated.

odds are if you fight EVERYONE, you're gonna get beat at some point unless all the guys ranked in your era are subpar kinda fighters in that case, it can't be held against you but you aren't gonna get the highest praise if you had no comp

i feel like its the ONLY way to go undefeated picking opponents exacty the way mayweather did

You are a Floyd Mayweather or Pacquiao fan aren't you? There are other KNOWN names to retire undefeated, Floyd is not the only. 1. Joe Calzaghe 2. Rocky Marciano 3. Ricardo López So are all of those fighters cherry pickers as well? I don't think they are necessarily cherry pickers but there are some questions about them. Full disclosure, I don't know much about the strawweight division so i won't talk about Lopez. Calzaghe could have definitely come to America wayyy earlier and fought better competition. He has 4 names out of 46 fights and arguable lost to Hopkins in one of those four. I've heard he was offered to fight Roy jones many years earlier than he did to which I would say yes he did cherry pick. He fought him way past his prime. I also think he turned down a Froch fight at one point in his career. Lastly, its not his fault but the SMW division was very weak at the time he reigned, it got much stronger a couple of years later. I think his retirement is justified due to his age but he still had more to prove so to answer the original question, no he did not fight everyone. Marciano retired undefeated but also retired very young (32 years old). Also he didn't actually fight a champion until his 43rd fight out of 49 fights. He was a champ for only 3 years. Compare that with the heavyweight champion of the sixties, Ali. He fought for a title in his 20th fight of 61 career fights. He won a title in 1961 and fought until 1984, whereas Marciano won it in 1953 and retired in 1955. I wasn't around in his time but looking at his record I would assume he still had more to prove in his career when he retired, he was only at the top for 3 years and that's why he isn't looked at as the greatest of all time.

Not just who you're supposed to, but when you're supposed to. If everyone fought each other in their peak or at their prime instead of stalling for years at a time then nobody would go undefeated.

ofcourse its possible. Have to be very special and no when to hang them up though. I dont think anyone wouldve beaten Roy Jones Jones took a decade between big fights, plus he also lost to Griffith, and tarver.. Both guys were considered top level light heavys so it's safe to assume Roy can be beat... Your prime is a lot shorter than your career, so if u fight top guys every time, your bound to lose, it may be a crazy loss like montel, or legit like tarver,, but it happens Let Roy compete at light heavy during the spinks era when the division was stacked, you will lose at least once...

If Floyd retires undefeated his legacy is tarnished with the people he ducked along the way. On the other hand if Bradley retired now he would have a HOF worthy resume and no one would say he was a ducker.

So says the guy that lost to Peter Manfredo Jr in the Ams. Rocky Marciano was 9-4 in the amateurs

Lomachenko is a bigger draw than Gary Russell jr One example of how precious this egg nowadays is danny He was suppose to lose it but gbp choose to preserve it because its precious

Lomachenko is a bigger draw than Gary Russell jr U have to also consider whos marketing ur egg

Also having a zero means money nowadays so most fighters try their best to not break their egg Lomachenko is a bigger draw than Gary Russell jr