The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[IamInuit]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

Quality post. I agree with much of what you said. What we have seen over the last decade or 15 years or so is the gradual pussyfication of pugilism. We live in and/or are experiencing a coddled culture in boxing and yet we put all the emphasis on winning. To me this is philosophically inept. From such a premise you get a boat load of meaningless tin and a bunch of protected fighters. Not all “0’s” are the same and yet that’s how they are marketed. Some of them are downright deceiving. Case in point Omar Chavez, his entire resume reads like a canned soup aisle at a local grocery store but he’s 25 and 0 and has a famous father. Same with his brother 42 and 0, at the top of the money train but has not fought anyone. There are plenty of others like Ottke with a dubious 0 but the Chavez brothers jumped right out.

This culture of under matching young talent and prospects all the way up and then boasting about their undefeated records is a real slap in the face to this long time fan. It’s not good for the fighter either. They should be matched tougher on the way up so they would learn how to deal with adversity. However that may risk the loss of that pesky 0. I think the watering down probably started when they went from 15 to 12 rounds which statistically has resulted in more deaths and injury then the previous 15 round eras.


Somehow, the power brokers of the sport have managed to twist or manipulate the meaning of “risk and reward.” Why should Cunningham rematch Troy Ross when he can make more money fighting a no risk fight against George Castanza. I mean that’s what legacy means today, money. Such a mentality would have been unheard of in the days of the fab five. Now it’s the norm and imo risk and reward has become a kind of oxymoronic hybrid term. Sure money was important but these guys wanted to fight each other. The 0 was important to but not enough to stop them from risking it. I realize things change but with all these bloody belts, Orgs and people not fighting each-other I can still love the sport but distrust and question the status quo.

There is simply something fundamentally wrong when a fighter after years of turmoil and torture loses his way to make a living because he lost a fight. Arguello (rip) was ko’d in his fourth fight and lost the very next one on points. Benny Leonard, Kid Lewis, Henry Armstrong, Billy Conn and Manuel Ortiz all share one thing in common. They all lost their first fight. I feel a little bad for struggling fighters today. Forgive my cynicism and long winded response but it’s just because I had the privilege as a result of my birth to witness several different eras and none of them looked like this one. Don’t get me wrong, I love the sport and will continue to but I do not like some of the directions it has taken over some years.

[generalbulldog]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

Quality post. I agree with much of what you said. What we have seen over the last decade or 15 years or so is the gradual pussyfication of pugilism. We live in and/or are experiencing a coddled culture in boxing and yet we put all the emphasis on winning. To me this is philosophically inept. From such a premise you get a boat load of meaningless tin and a bunch of protected fighters. Not all “0’s” are the same and yet that’s how they are marketed. Some of them are downright deceiving. Case in point Omar Chavez, his entire resume reads like a canned soup aisle at a local grocery store but he’s 25 and 0 and has a famous father. Same with his brother 42 and 0, at the top of the money train but has not fought anyone. There are plenty of others like Ottke with a dubious 0 but the Chavez brothers jumped right out.

This culture of under matching young talent and prospects all the way up and then boasting about their undefeated records is a real slap in the face to this long time fan. It’s not good for the fighter either. They should be matched tougher on the way up so they would learn how to deal with adversity. However that may risk the loss of that pesky 0. I think the watering down probably started when they went from 15 to 12 rounds which statistically has resulted in more deaths and injury then the previous 15 round eras.


Somehow, the power brokers of the sport have managed to twist or manipulate the meaning of “risk and reward.” Why should Cunningham rematch Troy Ross when he can make more money fighting a no risk fight against George Castanza. I mean that’s what legacy means today, money. Such a mentality would have been unheard of in the days of the fab five. Now it’s the norm and imo risk and reward has become a kind of oxymoronic hybrid term. Sure money was important but these guys wanted to fight each other. The 0 was important to but not enough to stop them from risking it. I realize things change but with all these bloody belts, Orgs and people not fighting each-other I can still love the sport but distrust and question the status quo.

There is simply something fundamentally wrong when a fighter after years of turmoil and torture loses his way to make a living because he lost a fight. Arguello (rip) was ko’d in his fourth fight and lost the very next one on points. Benny Leonard, Kid Lewis, Henry Armstrong, Billy Conn and Manuel Ortiz all share one thing in common. They all lost their first fight. I feel a little bad for struggling fighters today. Forgive my cynicism and long winded response but it’s just because I had the privilege as a result of my birth to witness several different eras and none of them looked like this one. Don’t get me wrong, I love the sport and will continue to but I do not like some of the directions it has taken over some years.

I think you may be wrong about more deaths being associated with 12 rounders than it was 15 rounders. If I'm not mistaken around early 80s the alphabet gangs decided to go with 12 rounders because of the death of Duk Koo Kim where there were studies that were done that fighters took a lot of more punishment in those 3 extra rounds. Not to mentioned there are mentions of that today's figthers take advantage of boiling down and then rehydrating 10-15 pounds or more on fight night where it's unhealthy for the brain and body because it's not properly rehyrdrated yet. That's what I've heard from people over the years with these 24 hour weigh ins and then rehydration. Boxing up until I think the early 80s still had same day weigh ins.

And I think 24 hour weigh ins and the 12 round limit were implemented around the same time. So you can't say that the 12 rounders were the cause of more deaths, when it's likely the 24 hour weigh ins that could be the reason. As they say in stats class, correlation does not mean causation.

[IamInuit]

I think you may be wrong about more deaths being associated with 12 rounders than it was 15 rounders. If I'm not mistaken around early 80s the alphabet gangs decided to go with 12 rounders because of the death of Duk Koo Kim where there were studies that were done that fighters took a lot of more punishment in those 3 extra rounds. Not to mentioned there are mentions of that today's figthers take advantage of boiling down and then rehydrating 10-15 pounds or more on fight night where it's unhealthy for the brain and body because it's not properly rehyrdrated yet. That's what I've heard from people over the years with these 24 hour weigh ins and then rehydration. Boxing up until I think the early 80s still had same day weigh ins.

And I think 24 hour weigh ins and the 12 round limit were implemented around the same time. So you can't say that the 12 rounders were the cause of more deaths, when it's likely the 24 hour weigh ins that could be the reason. As they say in stats class, correlation does not mean causation.

You could be right on the stats. Might make for an interesting sideline study. Small part of what I was trying to say though btw

Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

Agreed.

[marbleheadmaui]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

Quality post. I agree with much of what you said. What we have seen over the last decade or 15 years or so is the gradual pussyfication of pugilism. We live in and/or are experiencing a coddled culture in boxing and yet we put all the emphasis on winning. To me this is philosophically inept. From such a premise you get a boat load of meaningless tin and a bunch of protected fighters. Not all “0’s” are the same and yet that’s how they are marketed. Some of them are downright deceiving. Case in point Omar Chavez, his entire resume reads like a canned soup aisle at a local grocery store but he’s 25 and 0 and has a famous father. Same with his brother 42 and 0, at the top of the money train but has not fought anyone. There are plenty of others like Ottke with a dubious 0 but the Chavez brothers jumped right out.

This culture of under matching young talent and prospects all the way up and then boasting about their undefeated records is a real slap in the face to this long time fan. It’s not good for the fighter either. They should be matched tougher on the way up so they would learn how to deal with adversity. However that may risk the loss of that pesky 0. I think the watering down probably started when they went from 15 to 12 rounds which statistically has resulted in more deaths and injury then the previous 15 round eras.


Somehow, the power brokers of the sport have managed to twist or manipulate the meaning of “risk and reward.” Why should Cunningham rematch Troy Ross when he can make more money fighting a no risk fight against George Castanza. I mean that’s what legacy means today, money. Such a mentality would have been unheard of in the days of the fab five. Now it’s the norm and imo risk and reward has become a kind of oxymoronic hybrid term. Sure money was important but these guys wanted to fight each other. The 0 was important to but not enough to stop them from risking it. I realize things change but with all these bloody belts, Orgs and people not fighting each-other I can still love the sport but distrust and question the status quo.

There is simply something fundamentally wrong when a fighter after years of turmoil and torture loses his way to make a living because he lost a fight. Arguello (rip) was ko’d in his fourth fight and lost the very next one on points. Benny Leonard, Kid Lewis, Henry Armstrong, Billy Conn and Manuel Ortiz all share one thing in common. They all lost their first fight. I feel a little bad for struggling fighters today. Forgive my cynicism and long winded response but it’s just because I had the privilege as a result of my birth to witness several different eras and none of them looked like this one. Don’t get me wrong, I love the sport and will continue to but I do not like some of the directions it has taken over some years.

Damn, I wish I'd written that!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

This whole post is like food for my fuckin' SOUL! I totally feel every word and I have to be honest. I don't think I've ever been in total agreement with such an extensive post as I have this one. Fuckin' way to go buddy...

[Mar]

....those claiming being unbeaten means nothing have probably been beaten themselves. Your goal is to win. There's nothing wrong with loosing, shit for some it helps thier career but saying perfection is meaningless is silly. For example look how quick fans are to call a guy garbage for one or two losses. You think a loss doesn't affect you paychecks or marketing exposure ? To us real fans it may not mean squat but in the big picture fuck yea it matters. Don't be so quick to say and undefeated fighter hasn't fought anyone. Take floyd if that was true that means marquez, hatton, mosley (who even pac and his guys are trying to convince you is viable) de la hoya etc.....are all garbage. And pac has gotten credit for beating most of the same people floyd has. Some even being drained and beaten before hand by him.

[marbleheadmaui]

....those claiming being unbeaten means nothing have probably been beaten themselves. Your goal is to win. There's nothing wrong with loosing, shit for some it helps thier career but saying perfection is meaningless is silly. For example look how quick fans are to call a guy garbage for one or two losses. You think a loss doesn't affect you paychecks or marketing exposure ? To us real fans it may not mean squat but in the big picture fuck yea it matters. Don't be so quick to say and undefeated fighter hasn't fought anyone. Take floyd if that was true that means marquez, hatton, mosley (who even pac and his guys are trying to convince you is viable) de la hoya etc.....are all garbage. And pac has gotten credit for beating most of the same people floyd has. Some even being drained and beaten before hand by him.

So let me get this straight. That means Swen Ottke was great? Terry Marsh was great? REALLY? Chris John is great? Omar Narvaez is great? That's really what you want to hang your hat on?

Let's try it this way. What is more impressive. Chris John having done what's he's done or Carlos Ortiz doing the following. In eight consecutive fights he fought HOFers seven times. In those eight fights he went 6-1-1.

Saying a record matters without reference to who someone fought (and didn't fight) is silly.