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.