The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[IamInuit]

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!

You mean their matchmakers.

[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!

You mean their matchmakers.

ha well them too. I'm not sure though, but I'd imagine for a promoter who snaps up a young Olympian say at the beginning of his career he probably loses money initially and won't see a return on his investment until he gets to world level and starts making some serious money.

I'm sure Warren has done well out of Khan and De Gale from fairly on, but the talented fighters from whom a lot is expected but don't have a massive appeal instantly probably don't generate much cash until they get to the belts.

Take the Columbians for instance. Landra, Rigondeaux, Solis et al. They probably haven't made a ton of cash for their promoters yet, but are seen as long term investments. If they never reach the big time, the promoters probably cut a loss, so of course they are going to try and make sure they market them right.

Ultimately we the fans just want the best fights, the interests of the boxers and promoters are of little concern to us. Well they want to earn, it's their business and livlihoods and their interests come first for them.

The UFC is good for everybody fights everybody matchups, but then that organisation controls ever fighter so whoever wins or loses is no risk to them.

[IamInuit]

Look when so called prospects are being spoon fed to a title shot, there is something wrong and it’s systemic. Alvarez is now talking about fighting Mayorga after Rhodes. Seriously I hope Rhodes throttles him and until recently I was a fan of Alvarez.

[JonnyFolds]

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!

If fighters want to try to win like Paul McCloskey, then more power to them. They are neither going to win fans, or, when they meet a guy with more determination than skill; He will beat them senseless.

Yes, in fact a fighter who goes out swinging is a fighter worth watching. I would not like to have to give up on my fighter after the 5th round of a 12 round fight if I didn't think he could put a guy on the seat of his pants.

Well how many Sultan Ibragamov fans out there? Yes, I think fighters have the air of invincibility burst at times after fights. But, I look to see how a fighter could improve, or even IF they can improve. Kassim Ouma will never be able to KO a world class fighter, and he lacks the speed and power to cripple a division, but he makes for interesting fights. And he is tenacious.

Trust me, I am not a fanboy when it comes to records. I like a good scrap as much as the next guy. Point here is, prospects need to be in real fights before too long, and I think records are overhyped. I like a record like Margarito's or Martinez'... a little hard to actually see what is going on in there. Makes for interesting betting.

[JonnyFolds]

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!

You mean their matchmakers.

ha well them too. I'm not sure though, but I'd imagine for a promoter who snaps up a young Olympian say at the beginning of his career he probably loses money initially and won't see a return on his investment until he gets to world level and starts making some serious money.

I'm sure Warren has done well out of Khan and De Gale from fairly on, but the talented fighters from whom a lot is expected but don't have a massive appeal instantly probably don't generate much cash until they get to the belts.

Take the Columbians for instance. Landra, Rigondeaux, Solis et al. They probably haven't made a ton of cash for their promoters yet, but are seen as long term investments. If they never reach the big time, the promoters probably cut a loss, so of course they are going to try and make sure they market them right.

Ultimately we the fans just want the best fights, the interests of the boxers and promoters are of little concern to us. Well they want to earn, it's their business and livlihoods and their interests come first for them.

The UFC is good for everybody fights everybody matchups, but then that organisation controls ever fighter so whoever wins or loses is no risk to them.

I think you meant Cubans not Columbians. I have Cuban friends and they would be offended.. lol

True true about UFC.. They really can recycle one fighter as many times as they want.

Matt Hughes
Chuck Liddel
Tito Ortiz
These guys are all so marketable.. But when is the last time you look at one of these aging fighters records? And TKO losses... It's like a bunch of Ricardo Mayorgas running around in there or worse!

[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.

[Spicoli]

Boxing fans learn to look behind the numbers. I think thats whats so great about forums in that you can probally name any fighter past or present and a certain fight can be pointed to as hotly disputed and a iffy call for the man with the "0". This is good to keep in mind when you say if you don't have a lose then your not tested etc etc. The judges may have mucked it up and the ref made terrible calls but keeping the circumstances 'in the know' is essential. This always gets me when I here some commentator run on about "so and so has never been hurt" etc. How the hell do you know, like you watched every single bout, round and so on when super bad was rising up in the ranks...off YOUR network and off the air. Way to much generalization.

The numbers ultimately can be superficial, a tag line and selling point of sorts. Certainly points at accomplishments and merits respect but its window dressing more and more. You see it with an announcer for example when a established 'super star' comes back from initial lose. Buffer does it all the time..." And in the red corner with only one disputed loss" or "One loss since revenged" etc etc. Just introduce the man, ya know. No foot notes necessary. Thats done for the arm chair fans and not so much 'hard core' types. Shit for all we know some of these divas have it inked in the contract Physically losing a fight can have a tax. Mentally its much bigger to come back from the more you are stroked and fawned over. Think this is where you gain the learning. Being humbled on a public stage can reveal much and a persons character...be it in the professional ring or getting your ass kicked in the school yard...so I've heard.