Why do people say being undefeated doesnt matter?

But EVERYTIME a fighter loses all you hear on here is they were exposed and or overrated? so if being undefeated does not matter why do fighters get so much sh1t for losing? Look at All the undefeated fighters in history, they were great, but never greatest of all time. Being undefeated in Mayweathers case is a series of well calculated and timed selection of opponents. Most of his best opponents are either coming up in weight or fights them after long lay offs, career changing beatings, extreme catch weights, and brutal KO's. It is what it is, y'all been fooled.........

But EVERYTIME a fighter loses all you hear on here is they were exposed and or overrated? so if being undefeated does not matter why do fighters get so much sh1t for losing? Depending on the point in your career, being undefeated is important but not everything. Here on NSB, being undefeated changes depending on who the fighter is. Its a sign of greatness if you are a popular on NSB, regardless of how crappy your resumes I. Its a sign of not fighting anyone if you are not popular on NSB. I respect established fighters that are undefeated so long as they have what I consider quality wins on their resume.

sigh....... another day...... another Floyd thread by Larry The man retired. Let it go son.........

Undefeated records don't matter, unless the resume is good. Many guys right now, who have undefeated records, are yet to be tested. So, to say they are good fighters because they have undefeated records is not reasonable. A lot of the guys that are getting hyped at the moment are in this category, untested. Andre Ward and Mayweather are guys who stand out with legit undefeated records. Meaning they have great names on their resumes. This deserves respect and you can say that these guys faced top opposition and still remain undefeated. Great achievement. Aside from this, you can't really knock guys with losses on their records, if they consistently faced top quality opposition.

I think it's a case of an undefeated record not being the be all and end all. Just because a guys undefeated doesn't mean he's better or greater than a guy who lost 5 times. Those 5 loss's may be to other great fighters for example. Plus, the vast majority of fighters who retired undefeated don't have impressive records. People like Mayweather are more of the exception to the rule.

But EVERYTIME a fighter loses all you hear on here is they were exposed and or overrated? so if being undefeated does not matter why do fighters get so much sh1t for losing? Because the people b1tching are cunts?

If the fighter you're a fan of happens to be undefeated...then being undefeated is everything. If the fighter you hate is undefeated...then it means nothing and there are many asterisks. this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

https://i.imgflip.com/wg7tg.jpg HahaHaha word..... Or they can win every round convincingly and be somehow exposed haha

Reply Because mostly people analysed through emotions and not on fighters skills. So the peoples who understand boxing like you guys talks about fighting skills of a fighter, circumstances and many other aspects. But a man like me when see that a fighter loose which is my favorite, i will raise finger on that fighter.

Being undefeated doesn't mean much if you're cruising along fighting guys levels below you. Let's take Broner for example, cruised through and won a few titles, stepped up to a decent opponent in Maidana and got his ass kicked..that's being exposed. Now he's back to winning belts against nobodies.. Floyd being undefeated is a great feat, he fought almost every guy in his era and won. Granted a lot of those fights didn't take place when people wanted them to but in the end he could have had an off night and lost but he never did so credit to him for that. We don't know what guys like Spence,Vasquez,Parker,Joshua etc are about yet because they are fighting guys levels below them still. When they step it up if they get embarrassed the way Broner did then they will be "exposed" if they merely lose in a competitive fight then so be it. If GGG lost to Ward let's say, guys would still say he got exposed even though Ward is a top 1-3 P4P fighter..if he lost to Willie Monroe or Tureano Johnson then it would be applicable.

only an NSB poster would know. are you an NSB poster? I am an NSB poster and I'm fickle, whimsical cunt!

I know this one! It's because NSB posters are a fickle bunch of cunts.:rofl: only an NSB poster would know. are you an NSB poster?

It all depends on level of opposition, nothing else to it, literally...NOTHING.

If the fighter you're a fan of happens to be undefeated...then being undefeated is everything. If the fighter you hate is undefeated...then it means nothing and there are many asterisks. Thread ended here. It's no surprise most people who said "being undefeated means nothing" were Oscar and Pac fans. Just stating the obvious.

It only means nothing if you haven't fought anyone worth a damn. Certain posters unfortunately have double standards when it comes down to judging whether or not an opponent is worth a damn.

I know this one! It's because NSB posters are a fickle bunch of cunts.:rofl:

lmfao Larry keeps reachin with some of these threads

:lol1: And you complained that Vladimir Klitschko got decisions in Germany. must have been someone else. wlad should have been dq'd in many fights but i can't think of any fight that he should have lost on the cards.

Joe Mesi retired undefeated, 36-0. Means fucking nothing. He wasn't shit.

Froch said it best, "if you retire undefeated it means you didn't fight everyone you were supposed to". Boxers aren't superhumans, if they fight everyone they're supposed to consistently they will catch an L somewhere along the line. If they pick and choose who they want to fight, then sure they can protect their records, but who cares, they're not fooling anyone.