Career records in boxing

[Punisher136]

This thread was inspired by the Oganov-Zuniga fight. If you just looked at the numbers, Oganov looked like an unstoppable force (26-0 26ko's). When you look closer though, you can see that it was against lower tier guys. Even though his opposition was not great, he did defeat them as any legitimate prospect/future champ should. As is the natural course of boxing, it was time to take a step up in order to continue the climb to the top. Here he fell short, and it appears he is nothing more than a padded record.

Whether it makes sense or not, I believe it takes a loss to put what someone has done in their career into perspective. A loss can reveal a lot about a person. It shows what it actually takes for them to lose, the caliber of opponent it requires, and how they deal with adversity by bouncing back successfully or not.

There are thousands of pro boxers around the world and they can't all be champions. Boxing, IMO, has the lowest levels of parity out of any sport in the world. The differences between the guy on top of the division and the guy at the bottom of the division are vast. Different levels of competition aren't mandated by the sport's governing bodies, they just naturally develope. Nearly all of them are great athletes so knowledge and execution of the art really comes into play here. Everybody starts out fighting the lower level guys but that doesn't mean that every single boxer's record is padded with "bums". Great boxers (not to be confused with all time great boxers) defeat every level of competition that is below them and are competitive (not dominant) in the highest level of competition in their division. Good boxers beat the level of fighter that is below them, are competitive (not dominant) in the level they belong, and never quite make it to that next level.

Records can be deceiving and with that said, I believe there's a place for each level of fighter in the sport. A guy that is 20-0 isn't necessarily better than a guy that is 12-8, only time will tell for sure.

[Spicoli]

Its An Overused Cliche,But Records Can Be VERY Misleading.In Some Cases When I See A 50/50 Record vs. A Glossy Up & Commer,I Dig Into The Fights &Circumstances .It Is More Of A Risk Than Another Unbeaten Fighter,Imo.I Believe You Really Learn Who A Fighter Is AFTER THey Get Dropped,After They Suffer A Lose.In A Lot Of Cases,The Records Are Really Not The Important Thing , It's How TheyFought.Ask Freddie Pendleton.

[Sugar_Shaw]

Sometimes Promoter's don't want to risk their fighters and take a long time to let them step up. This means the fighter ends up with a record looking better than it is in actuality. In today's boxing, one loss and your career loses a lot if not all of it's momentum, especialy if your not an elite fighter.

[slk123]

I choose to look at the Oganov fight in a different light. I don't think he was prepared to handle someone who throws that many punches per round and has a good chin. I think the fight was competitive in a known punchers sort of way. He landed the harder more effective shots however he couldn't hang in there forever given that he would take up to 5 before delivering one good one. He'll probably come back from this a stronger better fighter. More prepared and not expecting to just walk through the opposition based solely on his power. As you stated early in your post, "...he did defeat them as any prospect/future champ should."

[DaxxKahn]

This thread was inspired by the Oganov-Zuniga fight. If you just looked at the numbers, Oganov looked like an unstoppable force (26-0 26ko's). When you look closer though, you can see that it was against lower tier guys. Even though his opposition was not great, he did defeat them as any legitimate prospect/future champ should. As is the natural course of boxing, it was time to take a step up in order to continue the climb to the top. Here he fell short, and it appears he is nothing more than a padded record.

Whether it makes sense or not, I believe it takes a loss to put what someone has done in their career into perspective. A loss can reveal a lot about a person. It shows what it actually takes for them to lose, the caliber of opponent it requires, and how they deal with adversity by bouncing back successfully or not.

There are thousands of pro boxers around the world and they can't all be champions. Boxing, IMO, has the lowest levels of parity out of any sport in the world. The differences between the guy on top of the division and the guy at the bottom of the division are vast. Different levels of competition aren't mandated by the sport's governing bodies, they just naturally develope. Nearly all of them are great athletes so knowledge and execution of the art really comes into play here. Everybody starts out fighting the lower level guys but that doesn't mean that every single boxer's record is padded with "bums". Great boxers (not to be confused with all time great boxers) defeat every level of competition that is below them and are competitive (not dominant) in the highest level of competition in their division. Good boxers beat the level of fighter that is below them, are competitive (not dominant) in the level they belong, and never quite make it to that next level.

Records can be deceiving and with that said, I believe there's a place for each level of fighter in the sport. A guy that is 20-0 isn't necessarily better than a guy that is 12-8, only time will tell for sure.

CC#253 very well said......

[THE THIRD MAN]

This thread was inspired by the Oganov-Zuniga fight. If you just looked at the numbers, Oganov looked like an unstoppable force (26-0 26ko's). When you look closer though, you can see that it was against lower tier guys. Even though his opposition was not great, he did defeat them as any legitimate prospect/future champ should. As is the natural course of boxing, it was time to take a step up in order to continue the climb to the top. Here he fell short, and it appears he is nothing more than a padded record.

Whether it makes sense or not, I believe it takes a loss to put what someone has done in their career into perspective. A loss can reveal a lot about a person. It shows what it actually takes for them to lose, the caliber of opponent it requires, and how they deal with adversity by bouncing back successfully or not.

There are thousands of pro boxers around the world and they can't all be champions. Boxing, IMO, has the lowest levels of parity out of any sport in the world. The differences between the guy on top of the division and the guy at the bottom of the division are vast. Different levels of competition aren't mandated by the sport's governing bodies, they just naturally develope. Nearly all of them are great athletes so knowledge and execution of the art really comes into play here. Everybody starts out fighting the lower level guys but that doesn't mean that every single boxer's record is padded with "bums". Great boxers (not to be confused with all time great boxers) defeat every level of competition that is below them and are competitive (not dominant) in the highest level of competition in their division. Good boxers beat the level of fighter that is below them, are competitive (not dominant) in the level they belong, and never quite make it to that next level.

Records can be deceiving and with that said, I believe there's a place for each level of fighter in the sport. A guy that is 20-0 isn't necessarily better than a guy that is 12-8, only time will tell for sure.

Excellent analysis, totally agree with you here, i have often seen guys with 7 or 8 losses fight an unbeaten prospect and cause the upset or was it really an upset? It also made me think of De La Hoya's
losses and when you think about it he has only lost to A grade Champions so perhaps we should give him some slack. It was Oganov's first test at a higher level, it will be interesting to see how he responds to the defeat.

[:::PSL:::]

The "Big Boppers" according to SHO...


W KO PCT.
Edwin Valero 22 22 100%
Vitali Klitschko 35 34 97%
David Haye 19 18 95%
Kermit Cintron 28 26 93%
O'Neil Bell 26 24 92%
Ponce DeLeon 32 29 91%
Kelly Pavlik 31 28 90%

[pacfan]

There was this guy named Carlos Zarate in the 80's who had an incredible record of something like 50 wins, 50 KO's before it was broken. But the issue of his opponents being cab drivers spoiled that record, though.

[Lance Uppercut]

There are thousands of pro boxers around the world and they can't all be champions.

I disagree. With the inventions of "super champions" and "interim Champions" along with an ever growing list of sanctioning bodys, weget closer ever day to a sport where everyone is a champion.

[Punisher136]

There are thousands of pro boxers around the world and they can't all be champions.

I disagree. With the inventions of "super champions" and "interim Champions" along with an ever growing list of sanctioning bodys, weget closer ever day to a sport where everyone is a champion.

Most fans and even a growing number of broadcast teams refuse to acknowledge most abc belts. The main 4 are the only ones they really follow but the wbo is on its way out in the legitimacy department.

[THE THIRD MAN]

There was this guy named Carlos Zarate in the 80's who had an incredible record of something like 50 wins, 50 KO's before it was broken. But the issue of his opponents being cab drivers spoiled that record, though.

Zarate was good but the moment he got in the ring with someone really good he was pulverized by Wilfredo Gomez. He fought a lot of chumps in his time.

[pacfan]

There was this guy named Carlos Zarate in the 80's who had an incredible record of something like 50 wins, 50 KO's before it was broken. But the issue of his opponents being cab drivers spoiled that record, though.

Zarate was good but the moment he got in the ring with someone really good he was pulverized by Wilfredo Gomez. He fought a lot of chumps in his time.

He moved up in weight in that fight and many sez that there are some problems in adjusting both physically and mentally when a fighter moves up in weight class so maybe Zarate can be excused on that fight, or am I being too kind to him. I think that was his first defeat.

[THE THIRD MAN]

There was this guy named Carlos Zarate in the 80's who had an incredible record of something like 50 wins, 50 KO's before it was broken. But the issue of his opponents being cab drivers spoiled that record, though.

Zarate was good but the moment he got in the ring with someone really good he was pulverized by Wilfredo Gomez. He fought a lot of chumps in his time.

He moved up in weight in that fight and many sez that there are some problems in adjusting both physically and mentally when a fighter moves up in weight class so maybe Zarate can be excused on that fight, or am I being too kind to him. I think that was his first defeat.

It was his first defeat, he also lost to Pintor, Fenech and Zaragoza late in his career. He has no wins against A-grade fighters IMO. Plenty of padding on the resume.

[brucelee]

Sometimes Promoter's don't want to risk their fighters and take a long time to let them step up. This means the fighter ends up with a record looking better than it is in actuality. In today's boxing, one loss and your career loses a lot if not all of it's momentum, especialy if your not an elite fighter.

I'm curious how you would assess Valero's wins.

[:::PSL:::]

Sometimes Promoter's don't want to risk their fighters and take a long time to let them step up. This means the fighter ends up with a record looking better than it is in actuality. In today's boxing, one loss and your career loses a lot if not all of it's momentum, especialy if your not an elite fighter.

I'm curious how you would assess Valero's wins.

Valero's wins are from nobodies (except from "Loco").