An unbiased take on "the record" from a Mayweather Jr. fan..

50-0 is not a record. 87-0 is not a record. As people with accounts on this site we need to stop letting ESPN shape how we see the sport. They dumb everything down to a "record" because casual fans get get excited and tend to stay tuned in if they think they are witnessing "history" live. It also is used by the network as a marketing/promotional tool. It's great that ESPN is more involved in boxing at the highest level but I am not going to let them tell me how to think about or see the sport.I agree that these records are given too much importance. No boxer today is likely to have 89 fights so that can't beat Chavez's record. The good boxers a boxer defeated when they were in their prime should mean much more than just beating a large number of boxers without a loss. A better than average boxer could probably cherry pick his way to a 51 and 0 record. That wouldn't make him better than Marciano or Mayweather.

Baldomir was on a 7 year win streak and weighed 170 lbs on fight night. That was a dangerous opponent and the lineal champ at 147 at the time. Ortiz also held a title at 147 and was also close to 170 lbs. Berto was not a strong opponent, but to call him weak is silly, still a champion and still dangerous. To compare those 3 guys to the scores of guys on JCC's padded record is insane. Finding guys with good records in JCC's first 87 fights is the exception to the rule. For every Roger Mayweather or Jose Luis Ramirez you have 3 guys with records like 0-1-0, 1-6-1, or 4-20-3. Among those 87 wins, 18 of his opponents were either making their first pro fight or had zero wins as a pro fighter. Another 16 had less than 6 wins as a pro. Another 11 had less than 25 wins and over 10 losses. So right there, you have 45 of those 87 fights as legitimate bums. About another 20 were below average to average opponents (worse than Berto). About 20 good opponents, maybe 5 who can be called really good to great. Berto would probably have been among JCC's top 12 wins in those first 87 fights. Like JCC, but that 87-0 was a joke. lol....truth!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus, maybe you should take a proper look into Chavez' record before labeling world class talents as bums. Did Chavez have some padding in his record? Sure, as does 90% of boxers. Chavez didn't have the amateur pedigree of Mayweather he needed it to learn his craft he couldn't afford to fight for a world title in his 18th pro fight. But to claim he fought 85 bums and then give props to mayweathers "26 champions and 30+ quality opponents"?? There are some names on Chavez' list who don't have world titles yet are better than guys like Ortiz, Berto, Baldomir... To say that Mayweather did not have one soft fight after the Gennaro Hernandez is ridiculous! Baldomir was on a 7 year win streak and weighed 170 lbs on fight night. That was a dangerous opponent and the lineal champ at 147 at the time. Ortiz also held a title at 147 and was also close to 170 lbs. Berto was not a strong opponent, but to call him weak is silly, still a champion and still dangerous. To compare those 3 guys to the scores of guys on JCC's padded record is insane. Finding guys with good records in JCC's first 87 fights is the exception to the rule. For every Roger Mayweather or Jose Luis Ramirez you have 3 guys with records like 0-1-0, 1-6-1, or 4-20-3. Among those 87 wins, 18 of his opponents were either making their first pro fight or had zero wins as a pro fighter. Another 16 had less than 6 wins as a pro. Another 11 had less than 25 wins and over 10 losses. So right there, you have 45 of those 87 fights as legitimate bums. About another 20 were below average to average opponents (worse than Berto). About 20 good opponents, maybe 5 who can be called really good to great. Berto would probably have been among JCC's top 12 wins in those first 87 fights. Like JCC, but that 87-0 was a joke.

87-0 was not impressive. 85 bums out of 87 fights. I think Floyd is smart to downplay 50-0, that's not his most impressive achievement. 50-0 vs 26+ champions and 30+ quality opponents while only coming close to losing twice is what's the best achievement in the sport of boxing's history. Floyd for the title against possible future HOFer in Genaro Hernandez in only his 18th fight, after that he did not fight a single bum until McGregor. People can say he didn't fight any prime All time greats all they want, Floyd fought only guys that were in the top 2 or 3 in their weight class his who career after getting warmed up, each and every one of them was a risk. Jesus, maybe you should take a proper look into Chavez' record before labeling world class talents as bums. Did Chavez have some padding in his record? Sure, as does 90% of boxers. Chavez didn't have the amateur pedigree of Mayweather he needed it to learn his craft he couldn't afford to fight for a world title in his 18th pro fight. But to claim he fought 85 bums and then give props to mayweathers "26 champions and 30+ quality opponents"?? There are some names on Chavez' list who don't have world titles yet are better than guys like Ortiz, Berto, Baldomir... To say that Mayweather did not have one soft fight after the Gennaro Hernandez is ridiculous!

...In More Relevant News Canelo vs GGG is Days away :dunno: Mayweather being 50-0 is not even one of the Top Reasons why Mayweather is a All Time Great for me at least. I won't even get into HOW Chavez Sr got to that many wins without losses I respect him too much to go back and disrespect him like that

50-0 is not a record. 87-0 is not a record. As people with accounts on this site we need to stop letting ESPN shape how we see the sport. They dumb everything down to a "record" because casual fans get get excited and tend to stay tuned in if they think they are witnessing "history" live. It also is used by the network as a marketing/promotional tool. It's great that ESPN is more involved in boxing at the highest level but I am not going to let them tell me how to think about or see the sport. This, this and this a million times There is no such thing as "the record" as the media and these casuals were pushing it as. How can it be "the record" when boxing doesn't even have a official governing body? Who sets the record, FIFA? WWE? The UFC? ESPN? Mayweather Promotions? Matchroom? Some other sporting entity? For all we know, there's a guy out there from Uganda or Slovakia who's happily retired with a 100-0 record. But we don't know because there's no official authority on these records. It's a record and with each record, it's each fighter's alone. Mayweather is 50-0, that's HIS record, his legacy, his greatness. He shouldn't have to be involved in chasing another man's legacy or as you put it "record". Mainstream boxing is going to be painful the next couple of years man. You just know they're going to say **** like "Oh Spence is great but can he surpass 50-0?", "Crawford is special but can he beat Floyd's record" etc etc etc everything will be about "the record"

87-0 was not impressive. 85 bums out of 87 fights. I think Floyd is smart to downplay 50-0, that's not his most impressive achievement. 50-0 vs 26+ champions and 30+ quality opponents while only coming close to losing twice is what's the best achievement in the sport of boxing's history. Floyd for the title against possible future HOFer in Genaro Hernandez in only his 18th fight, after that he did not fight a single bum until McGregor. People can say he didn't fight any prime All time greats all they want, Floyd fought only guys that were in the top 2 or 3 in their weight class his who career after getting warmed up, each and every one of them was a risk.

The problem is that the state of the sport nowadays will not have fighters come close to that amount of fights...especially an American fighter Back then many boxers had to accumulate that many fights in order to make bank. It's not the case now Plus on many occasions in order to have fights very often they had to fight opponents on short notice and then have the fight sanctioned by athletic commissions. Safety is a growing issue in the sport so having so many fights in succession is more difficult now Good post. Greenk sent. You are right, especially for American fighters.

Just put up a great fight and give your all, that should be your mentality as a fighter. Not everyone can be like Mayweather

I wasn't implying you were a casual fan but I was surprised to see someone with a 2010 join date refer to either as records. Respectfully, I disagree. IMO they are benchmarks, not records like a HR record or the 100 yd dash record. Maybe I'm just old school. I do think if you take a young talent like Gervonta, Valdez or Benavidez (just naming a few there are more), turn them pro at 18 and have them fight every 2 -4 weeks against 90/10 or 80/20 level comp then I think you can easily eclipse either benchmark. The problem is that the state of the sport nowadays will not have fighters come close to that amount of fights...especially an American fighter Back then many boxers had to accumulate that many fights in order to make bank. It's not the case now Plus on many occasions in order to have fights very often they had to fight opponents on short notice and then have the fight sanctioned by athletic commissions. Safety is a growing issue in the sport so having so many fights in succession is more difficult now

I watch no ESPN, and I'm not a casual fan. Also, yes they both are records, in more than one instance of the word. I wasn't implying you were a casual fan but I was surprised to see someone with a 2010 join date refer to either as records. Respectfully, I disagree. IMO they are benchmarks, not records like a HR record or the 100 yd dash record. Maybe I'm just old school. I do think if you take a young talent like Gervonta, Valdez or Benavidez (just naming a few there are more), turn them pro at 18 and have them fight every 2 -4 weeks against 90/10 or 80/20 level comp then I think you can easily eclipse either benchmark.

50-0 is not a record. 87-0 is not a record. As people with accounts on this site we need to stop letting ESPN shape how we see the sport. They dumb everything down to a "record" because casual fans get get excited and tend to stay tuned in if they think they are witnessing "history" live. It also is used by the network as a marketing/promotional tool. It's great that ESPN is more involved in boxing at the highest level but I am not going to let them tell me how to think about or see the sport. I watch no ESPN, and I'm not a casual fan. Also, yes they both are records, in more than one instance of the word.

50-0 is not a record. 87-0 is not a record. As people with accounts on this site we need to stop letting ESPN shape how we see the sport. They dumb everything down to a "record" because casual fans get get excited and tend to stay tuned in if they think they are witnessing "history" live. It also is used by the network as a marketing/promotional tool. It's great that ESPN is more involved in boxing at the highest level but I am not going to let them tell me how to think about or see the sport.