The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

Why would he?

Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.

See I thik you have misidentified you job as a trainer. Your job is NOT to gudide him to a world title with no mishaps. Your job is to prepare him so that he has an enormously productive (in money and honors) career. That necessarily means a long time at the top. Even in today's watered down era, one cannot stay at the top if one arrived there not being properly prepared. Look at the massive improvements Yoriorkis Gamboa has been forced to make along the way because he has been battle tested. Now I agree there are exceptions, but it is the opposite of the ones you identified. Guys without an amateur pedigree must be taken more slowly as they are having their amateur experience in the pros. THOSE are the guys you have to be extra careful with.

Seriously, I mean on FNF you watch some guy 15-0 with a prominent amateur background blowing away some overmatched guy from Idaho in one round...what is the point?

[DogTheBountyHunter]

The only thing a zero is good for is hyping and overrating a fighter.

[generalbulldog]

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.

Why would he?

Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.

See I thik you have misidentified you job as a trainer. Your job is NOT to gudide him to a world title with no mishaps. Your job is to prepare him so that he has an enormously productive (in money and honors) career. That necessarily means a long time at the top. Even in today's watered down era, one cannot stay at the top if one arrived there not being properly prepared. Look at the massive improvements Yoriorkis Gamboa has been forced to make along the way because he has been battle tested. Now I agree there are exceptions, but it is the opposite of the ones you identified. Guys without an amateur pedigree must be taken more slowly as they are having their amateur experience in the pros. THOSE are the guys you have to be extra careful with.

Seriously, I mean on FNF you watch some guy 15-0 with a prominent amateur background blowing away some overmatched guy from Idaho in one round...what is the point?

To build him up as some beastly fighter that can be the next superstar in boxing. Or record padding as people like to call it. I know what you mean about 15-0 fighters against some guy from Idaho with a record of 5-20 with 1ko.

[fan johnny]

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.

I think it is more about perception, than it is the record standing by itself. If it can be sold a promoter will take advantage of it. You will never be able to shut Floyd's mouth as long as he has a zero and he sells it like he a used car dealer.

When stepped into the ring against Duran 71-1 was Leonard 27-0. It was a very big big selling point at the time that Duran had vowed to the people never to loose again. I don't think casual fans and avid boxing fans alike even care the JCC jr has a 0 in the L column. Is it a meaningless record? Certainly not! It sells tickets.

[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!

[miron_lang]

Berto might have won respect he will be taking a big paycut in his career because less people will want to pay to see him fight.

That is bad for him. Attendance for the Ortiz fight was like 2000.

[brocktonblockbust]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein said that?? Guess he never heard of Rocco Marcheggiano of Brockton, Massachussetts. That guy named Rocco fought Joe The Brown Bomber Louis, Jersey Jow Walcott TWICE, Ezzard Charles TWICE, Don Cockell the European Champion, Archie The Mongoose Moore, etc.

No, he never fought nobody good.

[marbleheadmaui]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein said that?? Guess he never heard of Rocco Marcheggiano of Brockton, Massachussetts. That guy named Rocco fought Joe The Brown Bomber Louis, Jersey Jow Walcott TWICE, Ezzard Charles TWICE, Don Cockell the European Champion, Archie The Mongoose Moore, etc.

No, he never fought nobody good.

You left out Roland LaStarza who was no chump. As I said Marciano's legacy rests not on his being unbeaten, it rests on him so comprehensively wrecking the division it too the sport 18 months after his last fight to create a champion the public would accept.

[Kev]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein said that?? Guess he never heard of Rocco Marcheggiano of Brockton, Massachussetts. That guy named Rocco fought Joe The Brown Bomber Louis, Jersey Jow Walcott TWICE, Ezzard Charles TWICE, Don Cockell the European Champion, Archie The Mongoose Moore, etc.

No, he never fought nobody good.

You left out Roland LaStarza who was no chump. As I said Marciano's legacy rests not on his being unbeaten, it rests on him so comprehensively wrecking the division it too the sport 18 months after his last fight to create a champion the public would accept.

I obviously wasn't around back then but was Maciano beating Joe Luis more of a feat than Trevor Berbick beating Ali? As I understood it Louis was a shell of a fighter who had been forced out of retirement because he was bankrupt?

Walcott was that era's Frank Bruno, finally won a world title at after about 5 attempts and Marciano had to come from behind to win that.

I think Marciano was a great fighter, but well behind the other heavweight legends in terms of who he beat. He is precisely so well remembered becuase of his 0 imo.

18 months isn't a long time for the heavyweight division to recover. Lennox retired over 5 years ago and the divsion is still a mess...

[marbleheadmaui]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein said that?? Guess he never heard of Rocco Marcheggiano of Brockton, Massachussetts. That guy named Rocco fought Joe The Brown Bomber Louis, Jersey Jow Walcott TWICE, Ezzard Charles TWICE, Don Cockell the European Champion, Archie The Mongoose Moore, etc.

No, he never fought nobody good.

You left out Roland LaStarza who was no chump. As I said Marciano's legacy rests not on his being unbeaten, it rests on him so comprehensively wrecking the division it too the sport 18 months after his last fight to create a champion the public would accept.

I obviously wasn't around back then but was Maciano beating Joe Luis more of a feat than Trevor Berbick beating Ali? As I understood it Louis was a shell of a fighter who had been forced out of retirement because he was bankrupt?

Walcott was that era's Frank Bruno, finally won a world title at after about 5 attempts and Marciano had to come from behind to win that.

I think Marciano was a great fighter, but well behind the other heavweight legends in terms of who he beat. He is precisely so well remembered becuase of his 0 imo.

18 months isn't a long time for the heavyweight division to recover. Lennox retired over 5 years ago and the divsion is still a mess...

Equating Joe Walcott and Frank Bruno in any sense is boxing-crime! Walcott beat HOFers six different times! Who the hell did Bruno ever beat?

18 months is FOREVER in boxing for a new champion. It's just that this is the worst era of boxing since WWI and the people thinking the straps mean something screws up the process.

[JonnyFolds]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

Other sports: tennis, swimming, golf... These guys are constantly pitted against and thrust into the world level of opposition. On top of that, they can play day after day. In boxing I like that you only get 3-4 months to show up in the best form you possibly can for one night.
Any given day Federer will play Nadal; Woods/Mickelson; Kobe/L James

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

I think Floyd would have the same draw with his one loss in the past. The difference would be that the Castillo would have had another 12 rounds to try and upend Mayweather. That would have been more interesting than anything he has done >140.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

Some fighters take their losses and make light of it, Christobal Cruz has 11 defeats, Salido, Augustas? Losing does not mean you can't win your next fight, so I think the air of invincibility is only burst for an undefeated fighter if he is exposed. If someone lays a blueprint.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen.

Nobody cared about Akinwande. Only people watched LLewis' crappy fights were to see if someone would knock his block off again.

Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Chris John beat Juarez on the undercard of Marquez Mayweather. That was after the Draw. Since he is not calling out any featherweights (Salido/Gamboa/Lopez)

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

I think it more relies on how you fought and how you lost.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]All these guys are so past it. And we can see they do not have the talent that can upturn a division. Furthermore, I think his post mentioned nothing about Pacquiao. So I give him full credit for creating an unbiased post[/COLOR]

[Kev]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!