Undefeated record with less wins vs defeated record with more wins (which is better)?

Respectfully, you said they both beat the best comp available. So the quality is equal. In situations where the comp is equal, 100% is always a better winning percentage than 98%. That just isn't debatable. What you are asking now is different from that. If the 100-2 guy has fought a higher quality of fighter then of course that would be more impressive than someone who fought less fights, ,lower level of comp but was undefeated.. Yes, quality is equal but the quantity of the opponents aren't equal (100 > 50). If boxer A beats 100 A level opponents and loses to 2. Whilst if boxer B beats 50 A level opponents and loses to none. Boxer A may have a 98% win record, which is 2% less than boxer B's 100% win record. So in the win percentage department, boxer A will be inferior. However, boxer A would've beaten 50 more A level opponents than boxer B. Thus, 100 wins against A level opponents (Boxer A) > 50 wins against A level opponents (Boxer B). So ultimately, boxer A will have the greater QUANTITY of wins against A level opponents by a margin of 50. Whilst boxer B will have a greater percentage of wins over A level opponents by a margin of only 2%. So which accomplishment is more impressive, depends upon which accomplishment one values more: win percentage or win quantity. For me though, beating 50 more A level opponents is more impressive than only having a 2% more wins over A level opponents whilst also having 50 wins less.

You gave the "facts" to the question. And the facts were poor & thats why its a goofy question like I said first off. And the fact you don't believe in any era or division being better than any other era or division IS a wrong opinion. Its not subjective. And anyone here who knows boxing will tell you the same. All divisions aren't created equal & every era isn't either. *Mic drop, cuz this is among the top dumb stances I've seen on this site so welcome to my ignore list cuz your either retarded or an un-entertaining troll, but either way its not worth my further time* You gave the "facts" to the question. And the facts were poor & thats why its a goofy question like I said first off. The facts I've provided are objectively verifiable. E.G. Using a ranking system that sanctioning bodies use. Or using rules that sanctioning bodies use to mandate a boxer as a mandatory challenger to a champion. So you haven't explained fully, how it is 'poor'. Rather than merely making that claim. And the fact you don't believe in any era or division being better than any other era or division IS a wrong opinion. Its not subjective. No, it isn't a 'wrong opinion'. And claims about era x being better than era y or z without there existing any proof for such claims is absolutely subjective. My opinion that era x, not being better than era y or z without there existing any evidence for how any of those eras are better than another, is no more a 'wrong opinion' than somebody else claiming one era is better than another without basing their own claim upon any proof / evidence / facts. An opinion that isn't based on any fact / evidence / proof cannot ever be 'WRONG', period! And anyone here who knows boxing will tell you the same. That's an argument from popularity which happens to be a logical fallacy. All divisions aren't created equal & every era isn't either. That is possible! However, evidence has to be first provided on how one era or division is better than another. Otherwise, they are baseless claims which have no more value than someone else claiming those eras and divisions are equal. *Mic drop, cuz this is among the top dumb stances I've seen on this site so welcome to my ignore list cuz your either retarded or an un-entertaining troll, but either way its not worth my further time* You haven't demonstrated any such claim to be true. Ergo, if anybody is the retard here, then it is most certainly you and not me.

better to have hit on 100 hotties and struck out a few times than to have a 100% strike rate with 50 ugly chicks wish someone told me that back when I was single....

better to have hit on 100 hotties and struck out a few times than to have a 100% strike rate with 50 ugly chicks

This is the dumbest question ever. You have to look at who they fought. Case 1 - Random ham and egger is 22-0 who won all of those fights in small clubs. Case 2 - Kubrat Pulev, 25-1 record, 6th ranked heavyweight by the ring. clearly the first fighter is better though, he's undefeated, right?

Well, the bold part certainly is debatable because it assumes having a higher win percentage is 'better' than having higher quantity of wins. In other words, higher win percentage > higher win quantity. Boxer A may have a 100% win record and therefore have 2% more wins over boxer B who has a 98% win record. However, boxer B has 50 more wins in total compared to boxer A. So although 100% > 98% in terms of winning percentage. 100 wins > 50 wins is also true. So which one is 'better' in this regard? I guess it's subjective and based on personal preference. However, I personally don't believe having a higher win percentage is necessarily better than having higher quantity of wins. Respectfully, you said they both beat the best comp available. So the quality is equal. In situations where the comp is equal, 100% is always a better winning percentage than 98%. That just isn't debatable. What you are asking now is different from that. If the 100-2 guy has fought a higher quality of fighter then of course that would be more impressive than someone who fought less fights, ,lower level of comp but was undefeated..

more wins. it take a lot to go another 49 fights winning. It only gets harder as you get older and mentally, its more difficult to maintain it anyway.

I hate to break this too you snowflake but everyones opinion isn't created equally. And if yours do happen to be legit I think you'll discover at some point how silly they are, with any luck at least. Til then I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of being a poor troll so take it as a compliment. Generally mfers learn to troll better than they become smarter as time goes on so I'm being an optimist about your future brother. Good luck with future trolling & I'd encourage you to look up some of my B & above graded troll posts to work on your game. but everyones opinion isn't created equally. Actually, any opinion that isn't based on any fact, evidence or a logically sound and valid argument is of equal value. The only time when one opinion has greater value than another is when that opinion is substantiated by evidence, facts and logically sound & valid arguments. When opinion x has more facts and evidence used for substantiation, it has more value than opinion y which is substantiated by 0 facts, evidence or logical arguments. Claiming you think weight division X is stronger than weight division Y without anything to back that claim up has no more value than me disagreeing with that claim. it's no different from someone claiming they like chocolate whilst another individual disagrees with that claim and doesn't like chocolate. In both these instances, the opinions are totally unsubstantiated and therefore, are of equal value. And if yours do happen to be legit I think you'll discover at some point how silly they are, with any luck at least. This thread is legit and the only thing silly is perhaps your inability to comprehend simple concepts. Nothing from my behalf is silly. Your lack of understanding of my thread =/= me trolling. Til then I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of being a poor troll so take it as a compliment. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as someone who isn't deluded or mentally incapable, but just requires some logic courses to learn how to think better.

That issue you speak of..."Not Losing" as opposed to performing at the top of one's game is something I have seen a lot of. Its actually a big issue. When Ricky Hatton beat Zoo he did so as a swashbuckler! Daring inside attacks, etc. But after that fight in my opinion he went into "hump" mode. He started to throw a punch and hump, and looked horrible. Eventually by the time he fought Mayweather the fast feet, daring attacks had long ago dissapeared from his arsenal. That is one example, but one could argue that Vlad's career when he learned to "win" with Stewart was a similar thing. When fighters get too attached to not losing the result can be very poor skills in favor of not taking any risks. The thing about comparing the two fighters situations is that they are, for many practical purposes....equal! hence the natural equivalency. What it proves is that we need all the other stuff that tells us the value of things like: bad decisions, weight class fighters fought in, and of course, relative strength of competition. We need to assign a value to those things. Philosophically we also have to ask: If a fighter is undefeated while another fighter is undefeated, and fighter b comes back and loses... does that loss make him less undefeated than fighter A? Roy Jones is a good example of this problem. We can't say that in actuality the loss makes the fighter b "less" compared to fighter A because they were both undefeated for a set length of time and the only difference is that fighter B, perhaps older and needing money...whatever... fought after and lost a fight. Finally, how about fighters with incredible streaks of undefeated, should we just average it out? This is just some food for thought as they say!:dance: Fair enough! I don't entirely agree with every point you've made but I understand what your perspective is. Some good points though regardless!

B- trolling So because I don't believe in someone else's subjective opinion without that opinion being based on any proof / evidence, it therefore makes me a troll? If that's your definition of a 'troll', then I am okay with that. And it'd also mean that anytime someone disagrees with another individual's opinion, that they would also be a troll

B- trolling That dude has unique way of turning "stupid" into gobbledyguk. He's special.

Good point! I guess it's based totally on subjective personal preference and there may not necessarily be a correct or an incorrect answer. So hence the poll! For me personally, winning is an accomplishment and not losing is not an accomplishment. Thus, if a boxer has won significantly more bouts (even with a few losses), that boxer has better and more accomplishments and therefore has the better record. The reason why I claim that not losing is not an accomplishment is because not losing should only be a byproduct of winning. Not an intended primary objective / goal That issue you speak of..."Not Losing" as opposed to performing at the top of one's game is something I have seen a lot of. Its actually a big issue. When Ricky Hatton beat Zoo he did so as a swashbuckler! Daring inside attacks, etc. But after that fight in my opinion he went into "hump" mode. He started to throw a punch and hump, and looked horrible. Eventually by the time he fought Mayweather the fast feet, daring attacks had long ago dissapeared from his arsenal. That is one example, but one could argue that Vlad's career when he learned to "win" with Stewart was a similar thing. When fighters get too attached to not losing the result can be very poor skills in favor of not taking any risks. The thing about comparing the two fighters situations is that they are, for many practical purposes....equal! hence the natural equivalency. What it proves is that we need all the other stuff that tells us the value of things like: bad decisions, weight class fighters fought in, and of course, relative strength of competition. We need to assign a value to those things. Philosophically we also have to ask: If a fighter is undefeated while another fighter is undefeated, and fighter b comes back and loses... does that loss make him less undefeated than fighter A? Roy Jones is a good example of this problem. We can't say that in actuality the loss makes the fighter b "less" compared to fighter A because they were both undefeated for a set length of time and the only difference is that fighter B, perhaps older and needing money...whatever... fought after and lost a fight. Finally, how about fighters with incredible streaks of undefeated, should we just average it out? This is just some food for thought as they say!:dance:

And this is why its a sh^t question. You gave too few details. You made it wayyyyyy to vague a question. But again if they are from the same era & different divisions there is the same exact problem cuz all divisions aren't created equally. If a guy was 50-0 or 100-2 at 147 he's gonna have fought better top contenders than the guy at 105 cuz 147 has always been a deeper division than 105. And if the guys are in the same division then the 50-0 guy must've beaten the 100-2 guy so he's for sure better than him almost ever time one can assume without digging deeper into the facts, which aren't present in your question, to make a more informed opinion. Like I said several times already you didn't really think this question through very well. The bold part is where the problem lies because this is where our viewpoints deviate. For me, there doesn't exist any such thing as a 'weak' or 'strong' weight division. A weight division is a weight division and unless there are exceptional circumstances where clear proof / evidence can be provided for how one weight division is weaker / stronger than another, then I avoid ranking the quality of weight divisions against each other. It is a meaningless exercise otherwise. For me, a boxer who accomplishes more in his weight division (like becoming the undisputed champion) than what another boxer accomplishes in his own weight division (like not being a champion at all), the boxer who is the more accomplished simply has the better record, period!

This ain't that difficult if you actually think about it bro. I mean look at Ali's "best contenders" & look at Wladimir Klitschko's "best contenders". I'd argue there is a huge difference in the quality of Ali's era vs Klitschko's era. Actual records aside if we say Ali is the 100-2 guy or the 50-0 guy with his resume after we deleted some actual record L's he'd be the better guy cuz that era he was in was among the top HW division eras ever if not the #1 era & Klitschko's era was average at best & some have been much more critical of it then I'm being right now. Its a stupid ass child-like question bro. Don't get all weird about it. We've all asked dumb ass questions before. You're just the one doing it right now is the only difference. The worst thing you're doing is acting like its not a stupid ass child-like question. I see where the problem lies now. You're assuming I'm comparing different boxing eras when that's not necessarily the case. In regards to Muhammad Ali's era being better than Wladimir Klitschko's. You do realize that majority of Ali's opponents wouldn't even qualify as Wladimir Klitschko's opponents by modern standard because they were too light? Most would either be cruiser weights and some even light heavyweights. So that part is easily debunked. Perhaps they may be better in a pound for pound sense, but certainly not in a head to head sense because of the evolution in weight divisions. And even in a pound for pound sense, how can we objectively verify that Ali's era and his opponents are better than Wladimir Klitschko's? Especially if we compare the best vs the best. How do we know that George Foreman is necessarily better than Samuel Peter? Or that Joe Frazier is necessarily better than Ruslan Chagaev? Or that Jimmy Young is better than Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers? Or any of Ali's opponent is better than Alexander Povetkin? Perhaps all of those opponents of Wladimir Klitschko were good and would've beaten the best opponents of Ali, but against Wladimir Klitschko, they were made to look bad because of how great Wladimir Klitschko is. It's entirely possible! Yes, it might be a commonly held western (British and American) belief and notion that Muhammad Ali and his best opponents are all better than Wladimir Klitschko and his best opponents (due mainly to nostalgia bias). However, I don't agree and I have no objective reason to. You go to the east and most would rather claim that the Klitschko era is even better. I know it's a blasphemy around these boards to claim this, but Ali's era wasn't really that good. It was overrated and never mind being compared to modern heavyweights, they are inferior to most cruiser weights today which would be a more appropriate comparison because of how small they were compared to modern heavyweights. For me, all one has to do and can do is to be the very best in their own era against the best available opponents / contenders in their weight division. If they accomplish this feat, then they go down as a great in that weight division. And if we compare them to the best boxers from different eras of the same weight division. Then the only objective conclusion we can come to is who performed better in their own respective era in terms of who has the better records and accomplishments duering their own era, compared to to the other. And whoever is better in this department is the greater boxer as far as I'm concerned. As such, Wladimir Klitschko did better as a heavyweight during his own era than Muhammad Ali did during his era. Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is the greater heavyweight.

To me, this question comes down to how much you value longevity. What are the ages of these fighters, by the way? I'm guessing that you'll say the same age (I'm also assuming you mean everything is exactly the same...same boxer in the same era...just one fights longer). So it's simply about how much extra points you give the guy for fighting on longer. If that overcomes the 50-0 fighters perfect record, then you have your answer. What is the beginning and ending age? Good question and I admit I wasn't as specific as I could've and should've been. Let's say those 2 boxers are brothers. Let's also assume one of them competes at light middleweight, middleweight and the super middleweight divisions and becomes the undisputed champion in all three of those weight divisions. This is the brother with 2 losses and 100 wins. whilst the other brother only competes in the light welter weight and welter weight divisions. That brother becomes the undisputed champion in one of the weight divisions and only a single title holder in the other weight division. This is the brother with 50 wins and 0 losses. Now let's assume both boxers start at the age of 20. And let's also assume both boxers have 4 bouts every single year. The first brother with 100 wins and 2 losses boxes for 25 years up to the age of 45. Whilst the second brother with 50 wins and 0 losses retires at the age of 33. Now who's record is better between the two brothers?

Boxer A's winning percentage is 100%. Boxer B's is 98%. Boxer A has a better winning percentage and thus has the better record(assuming equal competition). this isn't debatable. Now, if the question is which as a fan do you feel is more impressive (assuming equal competition), I would say Boxer B because he has 52 more fights than Boxer A and any pro that has won 100 out of 102 fights is IMO more impressive than a guy winning all 50 of his pro fight. Well, the bold part certainly is debatable because it assumes having a higher win percentage is 'better' than having higher quantity of wins. In other words, higher win percentage > higher win quantity. Boxer A may have a 100% win record and therefore have 2% more wins over boxer B who has a 98% win record. However, boxer B has 50 more wins in total compared to boxer A. So although 100% > 98% in terms of winning percentage. 100 wins > 50 wins is also true. So which one is 'better' in this regard? I guess it's subjective and based on personal preference. However, I personally don't believe having a higher win percentage is necessarily better than having higher quantity of wins.

Your giving a no win situation. It is not a bad scenario, but it has a natural equivalency built in: In other words, if you and me own an island... I have all the coconuts I need on my side of the island due to trees, and you have all the bananas you need due to banana trees... we can trade right? Well... what should the value of my coconuts be compared to your bananas? This question is often used in universities to display certain economic assumptions. We could simply say...take what you want...neither of us has any scarcity right? But as capitalists we would probably simply say: "one coconut to one banana, or one bunch of bananas per a nut"...you get the idea. I bring this up because in your hypothetical the best way to answer is to say "two great fighters, fighting equal comp"... Its equal. One guy didn't lose, the other guy lost only twice with twice the wins. Unless we have some point that differentiates these fighters there is no reason not to assume these feats are equal. So... like my coconuts grow twice as slow, or the fighter who is undefeated fought less prime opposition, etc etc. Good point! I guess it's based totally on subjective personal preference and there may not necessarily be a correct or an incorrect answer. So hence the poll! For me personally, winning is an accomplishment and not losing is not an accomplishment. Thus, if a boxer has won significantly more bouts (even with a few losses), that boxer has better and more accomplishments and therefore has the better record. The reason why I claim that not losing is not an accomplishment is because not losing should only be a byproduct of winning. Not an intended primary objective / goal

I didn't vote because it's impossible to know which is better unless you know which boxers they beat and which boxers they lost to. Loma is already considered the best or one of the best boxers in the world with very few fights. Nobody considers Wilder the best even with his many wins and KOs and no losses. That's why I specifically wrote 'against best possible opponents' such as contenders, highest ranked opponents, mandatory challengers and etc. Wilder hasn't been facing such level of opponents at heavyweight. That's true. However, someone like Golovkin has at middleweight because he has been facing the highest ranked opponents in his weight division at a consistent basis.

Can you name boxers who have done that? Then I'll tell you who I'd rather be. For example, I'd rather be Andre Ward or Floyd than Pac or Roy Jones. I admit I used a very extreme example to make a point. A more realistic example would be: who has a better record in their own respective weight divisions between Wladimir Klitschko and Michael Spinks? Now Michael Spinks is undefeated at light heavyweight but has far fewer wins in total. On the other hand, Wladimir Klitschko has been defeated a few times at heavyweight but has much more wins in total. I obviously choose the boxer with more wins due to more accomplishments. The boxer who cleared up his weight division and stayed on top as the best by beating more contenders for a longer period of time is better in terms of accomplishment than someone who stayed on top for a shorter period of time whilst fighting against less contenders.

I didn't vote because it's impossible to know which is better unless you know which boxers they beat and which boxers they lost to. Loma is already considered the best or one of the best boxers in the world with very few fights. Nobody considers Wilder the best even with his many wins and KOs and no losses.