We put too much emphasis on win/loss records in boxing

[Spray_resistant]

For all intensive purposes, with about 40-60 more punches thrown total and 1 less headbutt in his career, Clottey could have been unbeaten going into the Pac fight and maybe had a belt too......just imagine how bigger of a deal it would have been if Pac beat 38-0 world champion Clottey.

It would have been a bigger deal but why? he would still be the same guy that doesn't punch enough to have won against that style.

[gqjohnb]

For all intensive purposes, with about 40-60 more punches thrown total and 1 less headbutt in his career, Clottey could have been unbeaten going into the Pac fight and maybe had a belt too......just imagine how bigger of a deal it would have been if Pac beat 38-0 world champion Clottey.

It would have been a bigger deal but why? he would still be the same guy that doesn't punch enough to have won against that style.

Those are a lot of ifs though man. The reason he was not 38-0 world champion Clottey is because he was not good enough, did not have the wherewithal and/or trained well enough to do those things. And that is why Clottey is not on the same level.

[Spray_resistant]

Those are a lot of ifs though man. The reason he was not 38-0 world champion Clottey is because he was not good enough, did not have the wherewithal and/or trained well enough to do those things. And that is why Clottey is not on the same level.

The point is it wouldn't have made him a better fighter if he did slightly more to win 2 close fights he lost and just didn't get DQ'd in 1 fight he was winning, to have a "perfect record".

[gqjohnb]

The point is it wouldn't have made him a better fighter if he did slightly more to win 2 close fights he lost and just didn't get DQ'd in 1 fight he was winning, to have a "perfect record".

Ooooohhh... hmmm you do have a point there...but those little things are often the difference between mediocre disappointing fighters and celebrated great fighters.

[Spray_resistant]

Ooooohhh... hmmm you do have a point there...but those little things are often the difference between mediocre disappointing fighters and celebrated great fighters.

Well that and being about to sell a fight by saying the right things into the camera

[gqjohnb]

Well that and being about to sell a fight by saying the right things into the camera

HAHA yes also true.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

I was thinking about how fans perceive a fighter whether as P4P elite, contender, former great now past it ETC.....

Just look at Bernard Hopkins for example, I am not even really a fans but in his 5 losses all were pretty close and even 2 of those fight(Taylor) he could have won.

Many of them were so close that I estimate in 5 different fights he would have had to had won about 10-12 more rounds total to have a record of 56-0 today.

Just imagine if he did have a record like that today and he easily could have had it had things gone slightly different or he was a bit busier in some fights.

B-hop right now would be P4P #1 and rated as a top 10 ATG even though none of us have business making lists of that sort.

My point is even though it didn't happen that way, it easily could have and if it had, today he would still be the same fighter he is which is crafty fighter who is now on the downslide because of his age but it would be blasphemy if anyone said that on the sole basis that 56 would have tired and 56 would have failed.

i made a thread about this already, Undefeated REcords = su****iousness:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352174

You should have changed "We" with floyd fans.

[Dick Buffman]

For all intensive purposes, with about 40-60 more punches thrown total and 1 less headbutt in his career, Clottey could have been unbeaten going into the Pac fight and maybe had a belt too......just imagine how bigger of a deal it would have been if Pac beat 38-0 world champion Clottey.

It would have been a bigger deal but why? he would still be the same guy that doesn't punch enough to have won against that style.

are you sure you wanna commit to that?

This is interesting because without that 0 it seems like alot of his perceived greatness is gone according to his biggest supporters.

If they think he is great because of his skills and some of the good fighters he not just beat but dominated that is perfectly fine but if this greatness they perceive him as possessing depends largely on the 0........well it seems what we have is a failure to communicate because my ideal of greatness greatly varies from theirs.

Thats a mirage though. Most of the fighters we consider good that he beat are either way past prime, small, or both.

In Oscar's case he was a past prime part time fighter. In Jmm's case you could argue it was both. In Mosley's case its clear he was shot not just from being 38, but because he gassed after 2 and couldn't pull trigger.

Which all leads back to what Bigsby's saying about an 0 raising su****ious. In his case it has less to do with his talent and more to do with carefully crafted matchmaking. Opportunistic matchmaking. And timing of the matches made.

[Dick Buffman]

His best win might be Ricky Hatton. Which when you think about it, isn't that great a win to begin with.

I never thought much of Hatton at all.

[Spray_resistant]

His best win might be Ricky Hatton. Which when you think about it, isn't that great a win to begin with.

I never thought much of Hatton at all.

Corrales and Castillo the 2nd time were good wins for him.