The importance of being Undefeated

[FerFAL]

I get it why somoene that knows 0 about boxing thinks the 0 is so important. But its kind of funny to see it here as well where, well, you'd think people know the first thing about boxing.
Who you fought, how many wars you've been in and how you handled those wars is so much more important. In the old days people seemed to know this better, and many GOATs have a handful of losses here and there in their records. If anything, someone that supposedly never lost a fight makes me wonder about how cushioned his buildup careers were, or if he's cherrypicking and sticking to winable fights avoididng fighters with styles that are dangerous to him.
The great Carlos Monzon had 3 losses early in his career in Argentina. After that he became an unstopable force in boxing, never losing a fight again for the next 13 years, defending his title succesfuly 14 times. 87 wins, 3 losses and 59 won by KO.
Anyone that has a hard time believing how irrelevant being undefeated is should watch Mares vs. Gonzalez again.

[Weebler I]

If you consistently take on the best available opponents you're going to have a loss or two.

If you don't have a loss then chances are you're not consistently taking on the best available opponents (and boxing fans know).

[LacedUp]

If you consistently take on the best available opponents you're going to have a loss or two.

If you don't have a loss then chances are you're not consistently taking on the best available opponents.

Exactly. I haven't seen anyone taking on the best in their prime and being undefeated throughout his career. Even the likes of Marciano fought Louis, Charles, Walcott way past their prime. Same with Calzaghe and same with Mayweather for the most parts.

Couldn't care less about the '0' and I particularly do not necessarily rank a win higher if that person is undefeated. It's all about who you beat for that undefeated record.

[soul_survivor]

Yep, most fighters with undefeated records have padded resumes or haven't fought the best available opposition. The likes of Calzaghe, Mayweather, Marciano, and a 90s RJJ all were undefeated yet there are question marks over certain opponents fought at certain times. Yes all those men are great and proven themselves worthy champions but none of them would rank ahead of the likes of Hopkins, Pacquiao, Louis, Ali etc, men with multiples losses, heck both Louis and Pacquiao have been KOd in their careers.

[Jc8804]

Roy jones faught a prime. Toney, hopkins,griffin and
Tarver. And beat a heavyweight champ .
Thats not padded

[spytactics]

If you are undefeated you simply haven't fought with the best fighters in their prime

[SBleeder]

Ezzard Charles lost in his sixteenth pro fight. Nobody wrote him off.

On the other hand, fighters fought every few weeks back then.

[bojangles1987]

It's really not that important when your career is over and it's time to evaluate. No one is thinking, "well, he was undefeated so that matters more than looking at who they beat and when." I'm also of the opinion that most undefeated fighters have a questionable history of fighting the best. It doesn't mean they're fighting bums, but maybe not who they should have.

The 0 is a marketing tool, though, and a very valuable one. That's undeniable.

[TGD]

It's bull****, and so many fighters today seem to be obsessed with it. If you take on big challenges on the way up and throughout your career, the chances are you will pick losses along the way. Some fighters crumble after a loss, others come roaring back. It's part of boxing.

[richardt]

Like I have always said, some people are wined, dined, and seduced by unbeaten records and lose money in bets thinking unbeaten means unbeatable.