"Unbeatable" is a Crock of ****

[Thread Stealer]

Everyone is beatable, and those who never lost until after their prime, well things more than likely would have been very different if they fought in a different era and had to fight 15-20 times each year, sometimes against bigger guys.

With different judges, Marciano could easily have lost to Lowry and Lastarza, and lost to Charles with a different doctor.

Lopez was undefeated in a crap division that makes the 168 lb. division look like it has a long, illustrious history.

People yap about "so and so is invincible and unbeatable".

That's a crock of ****.

That's all.

[SkillspayBills]

Does anyone really say that. I have heard "it is difficult to see this guy being beaten" but unbeatable is one hell of a stretch.

[Thread Stealer]

Does anyone really say that. I have heard "it is difficult to see this guy being beaten" but unbeatable is one hell of a stretch.

I hear that **** all the time.

[BrooklynBomber]

Everyone is beatable, and those who never lost until after their prime, well things more than likely would have been very different if they fought in a different era and had to fight 15-20 times each year, sometimes against bigger guys.

With different judges, Marciano could easily have lost to Lowry and Lastarza, and lost to Charles with a different doctor.

Lopez was undefeated in a crap division that makes the 168 lb. division look like it has a long, illustrious history.

People yap about "so and so is invincible and unbeatable".

That's a crock of ****.

That's all.

I think people overestimate the 0 in the loss column, it only means that the fighter never met his true nemesis and never had to comeback from a loss.

You can have all the cool moves, power and speed in the world, but that would only make you a skilled and talented fighter but not a great. Coming back from a loss and being better then before is what separates men from boys.

[tyson]

I think people overestimate the 0 in the loss column, it only means that the fighter never met his true nemesis and never had to comeback from a loss.

You can have all the cool moves, power and speed in the world, but that would only make you a skilled and talented fighter but not a great. Coming back from a loss and being better then before is what separates men from boys.

Amen to that!

[Jim Jeffries]

Would Larry Holmes have remained undefeated if George Foreman hadn't taken 10 years off of boxing? If the ref had stopped his second fight with Shavers? Had he fought all comers like Michael Dokes or Gerri Coetzee? We'll never know.

The two fighters I've heard the term "unbeatable" with are Mayweather and a prime RJJ. But I agree, no one is unbeatable.

[RodBarker]

I think people overestimate the 0 in the loss column, it only means that the fighter never met his true nemesis and never had to comeback from a loss.

You can have all the cool moves, power and speed in the world, but that would only make you a skilled and talented fighter but not a great. Coming back from a loss and being better then before is what separates men from boys.

Thats putting the cart before the horse , to beat all comers is great in its own right if the comers are legit star material , to come back after a loss shows stature and resolve , being unbeaten does not mean a fighter dont have that .

[tyson]

Thats putting the cart before the horse , to beat all comers is great in its own right if the comers are legit star material , to come back after a loss shows stature and resolve , being unbeaten does not mean a fighter dont have that .

You are right, but being unbeaten is more likely down to avoiding fighting the guys who can beat you than the superman-like ability to overcome all the best fighters.

[Jim Jeffries]

You are right, but being unbeaten is more likely down to avoiding fighting the guys who can beat you than the superman-like ability to overcome all the best fighters.

Exactly, do people say Ali was not the greatest because he lost to Frazier and Norton while still in his prime. Or is he respected more because he came back to figure out and beat those fighters afterwards?

People are so scared to lose their 0 because of what it does to their career afterwards these days (example Hatton) that it's keeping us from the best matchups.

[Crazylegs77]

Everyone is beatable, and those who never lost until after their prime, well things more than likely would have been very different if they fought in a different era and had to fight 15-20 times each year, sometimes against bigger guys.

With different judges, Marciano could easily have lost to Lowry and Lastarza, and lost to Charles with a different doctor.

Lopez was undefeated in a crap division that makes the 168 lb. division look like it has a long, illustrious history.

People yap about "so and so is invincible and unbeatable".

That's a crock of ****.

That's all.

You think?

The only person I hear people saying is unbeatable is Floyd Money Mayweather.