Why do people say being undefeated doesnt matter?

[RetroSpeed05]

Those who say that also don't realize there discrediting there favorite fighters win if he beats a good undefeated fighter.

[lefthook2daliva]

But EVERYTIME a fighter loses all you hear on here is they were exposed and or overrated? so if being undefeated does not matter why do fighters get so much **** for losing?

Because there are alot of kids with adhd on here.

[Real King Kong]

just as i expected.

was the thread about Floyd or undefeated boxer in general?

my post applies to all undefeated fighters. why would you think it was just about floyd?

was the key word " cheat? "

but you and larry can't help it.

emotions and guilty feelings ruled over logical reasoning.

you and larry got butt hurt and cried ouch!

Lol...you don't know of any other undefeated boxers. You know floyd and manny....and manny isn't undefeated. That's called deductive reasoning.

[Rath]

Lol...you don't know of any other undefeated boxers. You know floyd and manny....and manny isn't undefeated. That's called deductive reasoning.

i know calzaghe!

[Rath]

Lol...you don't know of any other undefeated boxers. You know floyd and manny....and manny isn't undefeated. That's called deductive reasoning.

i also know marciano of who's record Floyd tried to better, but was only able to equalled.

deductive reasoning you say

the deductive reasoning was when you saw the word "cheat" immediately Floyd's name comes to your head.

[Real King Kong]

i also know marciano of which Floyd tried to better, but was only able to equalled.

deductive reasoning you say

Go back to the pact@rd threads...pact@rd.

[Rath]

Go back to the pact@rd threads...pact@rd.

you made yourself look genius again in the eyes of the NSB posters and guest viewing this thread.

CONGRATULATIONS!

[ИATAS]

More generalizing from Larry, shocking!

It all depends on the fighter. Guys like Bernard Hopkins lost several fights but had a great resume and career so no one is going to say he got exposed or was overrated.

Now if you're an undefeated fighter and lose the first time you step up, that's not going to look good. That however could be short lived, as that same person goes on to beat quality opponents afterwards, peoples perception will change again once they prove themselves. Plus "you're only as good as your last fight" is often true, especially with younger guys who haven't accomplished much yet. Then of course there are simply "haters", people who try to discredit fighters any chance they get.

[IFightDirty]

It matters to a certain extent but its not the end all be all. There are some undefeated fighters out there that have a few close/disputed decisions or looked bad in some fights, IE Danny Garcia, or some who have faced subpar competition IE Kell Brook, Deontay Wilder, GGG.

Id rate a fighter higher if they had a loss, even a bad one, but it was against a good name and has wins over good/great competition than someone who is undefeated but has faced less than stellar competition. IE Canelo to GGG

[daggum]

i believe it was floyd and then his fans who invented the narrative of if a fighter has a loss he's been exposed/overrated/overhyped etc...floyd and his fans used the "but he has so and so number of losses" as an excuse not to fight certain guys. then he fought ten loss baldomir...

being undefeated doesn't really matter when there are many controversial decisions in boxing that always seem to go the a-sides way hmmmm

being undefeated doesn't really matter when you sidestep certain guys that could snatch that undefeated record.

its more just a thing for the low information fans who are impressed with shiny objects. playing the undefeated card is basically an all purpose way to credit/discredit any fighter. ward hasn't fought anyone in 4 years but he's still the best because he's "undefeated" meanwhile a guy like lemiuex's recent resume was ignored because he lost a couple times 4 years ago.