Are undefeated fighters marked with undeserved su****ion?

[HappyBoxingFan]

DO fighters like Mayweather and Calzaghe may catch alot of abuse because of the 0 following their names? Historically, will this work to their benefit or detriment? Consider Marciano.

[Tyson123]

In 30 years it will work to there benefit.

[HappyBoxingFan]

In 30 years it will work to there benefit.

I'm not so sure. I think is about great stories... It's difficult to have a great story if you've never lost... See Louis v. Schmelling, Frazier v. Ali and countless trilogies that have put fighters on the map.

[abadger]

Its not because of the 0s per se, its more to do with the fact that they are at the top and nobody can beat them. For fans who don't like them the only way to bring them down, since they don't actually lose, is to slag them off, because no boxer has ever beaten them down for you.

[2501]

Its not because of the 0s per se, its more to do with the fact that they are at the top and nobody can beat them. For fans who don't like them the only way to bring them down, since they don't actually lose, is to slag them off, because no boxer has ever beaten them down for you.

that is only honorable when you fight the opponents who have the best chances of beating you and Floyd stopped doing that when he moved up to WW. Thats is the gripe with Mayweather. Calzaghe at least fought Kessler and BHOP.

[Guest]

that is only honorable when you fight the opponents who have the best chances of beating you and Floyd stopped doing that when he moved up to WW. Thats is the gripe with Mayweather. Calzaghe at least fought Kessler and BHOP.

Yeah, I think that risk reward plays a heavy factor in it. Of most of the greats, they all took risky fights. Sometimes they lost, but the reward for taking the fight and engaging at the highest level, far outweighs any zero on anyone's record.

[abadger]

that is only honorable when you fight the opponents who have the best chances of beating you and Floyd stopped doing that when he moved up to WW. Thats is the gripe with Mayweather. Calzaghe at least fought Kessler and BHOP.

Fair enough, I think Mayweather gets too hard a time of it. Hatton and Oscar were decent fights for him to take really, but he absolutely should have fought Cotto afterwards, it was the only fight out there.

[Feint]

Interesting question. I think that the best way to figure out if an undefeated record equals greatness you have to look at the level of the boxers competition. For example, Marciano's record comes under some scrutiny as the era in which he dominated in was not a strong one (in fact, many say it was near the bottom). Now that isn't his fault but you also can't disregard it.

As for Mayweather and Calzaghe it would be disingenuous to say that either of them aren't great fighters. But for Mayweather he fought in one of the best eras the welterweights have ever had yet he never fought Cotto, Williams, Mosely, or Berto. That is hard to overlook.

For Calzaghe his record comes under scrutiny because he fought out of Europe for the majority of his career and remained very much an unknown entity to the rest of the world. Only now in the twilight of his career has he become known to the rest of the world. And although I think a Calzaghe-Jones fight will be great, Calzaghe reputation takes a slight hit for not fighting Pavlik.

So I guess the answer to the question in no, I think it is in fact fair to be at least a little su****ious of an undefeated fighter at least until you examine their competition. But at the same time you still have to give them the respect that they deserve for what they have achieved.