100th win

[Bundana]

A rare occurrence these days, where boxers seldom have that many fights (never mind wins!).

But who do you think, was the last/latest boxer to celebrate his 100th pro win? How far back do we have to go, to find the last time this happened?

[KidDinamita]

A rare occurrence these days, where boxers seldom have that many fights (never mind wins!).

But who do you think, was the last/latest boxer to celebrate his 100th pro win? How far back do we have to go, to find the last time this happened?

Yori Boy Campas

[Bundana]

Yori Boy Campas

That didn't take long!

Campas scored win #100 as recent as March 2013 - and unless I have overlooked someone, this must be the correct answer.

[Anthony342]

Yeah, but who were those 100 wins against? I don't remember him beating any big names. Last significant ATG fighter to do it was probably Chavez.

[The Old LefHook]

One hundred losses is really rare. Or is that yet-to-be-acheived?

[Bundana]

One hundred losses is really rare. Or is that yet-to-be-acheived?

"Back in the day" when 150+ fight careers were commonplace, a boxer with 100 wins under his belt was no big deal - whereas someone with 100 losses was much rarer.

Today it's the other way around! Of course you don't bump into fighters with 100 defeats every day - but there are actually a few of them out there.

Boxers with 100 wins, on the other hand, is almost an extinct species! I'm not 100% certain... but I believe Campas must be the only still active (at least 1 fight in the last 12 months) boxer, who can claim 100 pro victories.

[BitPlayer]

One hundred losses is really rare. Or is that yet-to-be-acheived?

Surprisingly common.

These guys have over 200
http://boxrec.com/boxer/216597
http://boxrec.com/boxer/3372
http://boxrec.com/boxer/4741

[billeau2]

One hundred losses is really rare. Or is that yet-to-be-acheived?

Not only is it probably achieved...you could probably find guys who achieved it and were decent fighters! Slapsi maxi, one of the very best light heavies lost around 50 times... A cursory look at Box Rec lists 43 on record and states that 16 losses (don't know if they are separate) came from press box newspaper scores. Now lets just assume, given the times, there were a few losses that are not recorded, or whatever and we are basically up to around 50.

Slapsi was prolific but there were guys who no doubt fought more and lost more.

[Bundana]

Not only is it probably achieved...you could probably find guys who achieved it and were decent fighters! Slapsi maxi, one of the very best light heavies lost around 50 times... A cursory look at Box Rec lists 43 on record and states that 16 losses (don't know if they are separate) came from press box newspaper scores. Now lets just assume, given the times, there were a few losses that are not recorded, or whatever and we are basically up to around 50.

Slapsi was prolific but there were guys who no doubt fought more and lost more.

I don't know, what the criteria is for "decent". There has never been a world champion with 100 defeats (Johnny Dundee comes closest with 73), but of course you can be a decent fighter without ever capturing a world crown.

There have been several dozen boxers with at least 100 losses... and of these only 2 retired with a winning record:
George Marsden 195-101-40
Bill McDowell 163-102-25-1NC

If you manage 195 wins during a pro career... well, then I guess you must be a pretty decent fighter!

[billeau2]

I don't know, what the criteria is for "decent". There has never been a world champion with 100 defeats (Johnny Dundee comes closest with 73), but of course you can be a decent fighter without ever capturing a world crown.

There have been several dozen boxers with at least 100 losses... and of these only 2 retired with a winning record:
George Marsden 195-101-40
Bill McDowell 163-102-25-1NC

If you manage 195 wins during a pro career... well, then I guess you must be a pretty decent fighter!

Yeah agreed regarding "decent". A lot of guys...like Dempsey for example, had fights that were never officially recorded.

With that said I will say this: We see the same thing today. when we look at fights sooo many are debatable decisions. did Ward beat Kovalev? I think so, but when we look at this fight years down the stretch some may say otherwise...If we had draws as a part of decisions more often, which we may do one day...if judges score using diffent criteria one day... I mean today with punch stat numbers for example... When we see days when the mob influenced decisions, or paper men at ringside judged a fight, or the so called "home town advantage", It all seems to indicate that whatever decent is, a guy's record would not necessarily entail enough of the quality indicating the calibre of the individual we are discussing.

And a great example of that would be a guy like Charlie burley. Feared by many, lost to some of the best, yet considered a great fighter by many.