Do you think a boxer's won-loss record is a number which is most decieving in boxing?

[Chunk..]

Do you think some of the boxers with mediocre won-loss records might have been a prizefighter to begin their careers or did management not see what was obviously a good fighter right in front of them and "rushed" them: taking fights on short notice; not protecting them or careful matchmaking; rushing them against more experience fighters; or are their records indicative of their actual ability?

[Ray*]

Emmanuel augustus and glen johnson.

[Chunk..]

Emmanuel augustus and glen johnson.

Yep, i thought of him.

In modern fighters the perfect example to compare is that of Oscar De La Hoya, a mult-division champion who fought everyone of his era's best to that of Joe Calzaghe, an undefeated champion who almost never left his back yard and only fought mostly "safe" fights. The difference is glaring and obvious that De La Hoya's defeats were actually deserving of more respect than Calzaghe's wins.

It's not the record, it's who and more importantly when you fought your era's best that determines a historical legacy. The numbers are not as important as the quality and timing of the opposition. Roy Jones in 1986 was a boxing immortal, Roy Jones in 2006 a memory and a shell of his former self, so in that regard Jame Toney's loss to Jones is historically more significant than Calzaghe's victory over Jones. James lost a close decision to the best P4P fighter since Ray Robinson, Joe beat a shot fighter.

The won-loss record is extremely deceiving.

[Ray*]

Everytime i see glen johnson fight i just refuse to believe the losses in his L column, He gives his all even at this old age/stage.

Record can be very deceiving and am glad am not one of those fans who look at a fighters record to judge him.

[Sparked_1985]

Sven Ottke: he should have a mediocre win/loss record.

Glen Johnson is the man. Somehow he contrived to hold a loss against Omar Sheika but sparked Roy Jones.

[Silencers]

Records are very deceiving.

[The_Demon]

Yep, i thought of him.

In modern fighters the perfect example to compare is that of Oscar De La Hoya, a mult-division champion who fought everyone of his era's best to that of Joe Calzaghe, an undefeated champion who almost never left his back yard and only fought mostly "safe" fights. The difference is glaring and obvious that De La Hoya's defeats were actually deserving of more respect than Calzaghe's wins.

It's not the record, it's who and more importantly when you fought your era's best that determines a historical legacy. The numbers are not as important as the quality and timing of the opposition. Roy Jones in 1986 was a boxing immortal, Roy Jones in 2006 a memory and a shell of his former self, so in that regard Jame Toney's loss to Jones is historically more significant than Calzaghe's victory over Jones. James lost a close decision to the best P4P fighter since Ray Robinson, Joe beat a shot fighter.

The won-loss record is extremely deceiving.

haha wot a surprise calzaghe-hate on every thread very clever

[Chunk..]

haha wot a surprise calzaghe-hate on every thread very clever

This thread wasn't about Calzaghe to begin with, but he sticks out like a sore thumb on this subject. Not my fault.

Prove me wrong?

[The_Demon]

This thread wasn't about Calzaghe to begin with, but he sticks out like a sore thumb on this subject. Not my fault.

Prove me wrong?

hes fought enough world champions so i dont really need 2 prove anything 2 u lol,but carry on babbling ur rubbish plenty of people on this site will back you up

[Ryn0]

If you didn't know anything about boxing then Holyfields 42-10 records would be deceiving.