The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[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.

[Fenster]

Are you saying Mayweather and Lopez are not all-time greats? They needed a loss to attain this status? Or they simply don't belong amongst the "greats?"

I think that opinion will be in the minority.

You can't compare boxing with ANY other sport. A loss in boxing is not the end but numerous losses most certainly is. Tiger Woods or Roger Federer could go years without winning but one great week and all is forgoten.

A fighter can only take so many losses before he becomes no longer relevant. Which means he doesn't even get a future chance of glory. Not only is his health at risk but his monetary value drops considerably. The "0" can be a great selling point - hence Mayweather-Hatton being billed as Undefeated.

[Kev]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

[Fenster]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Good point. If Tiger Woods NEVER lost a game millions would believe he was Jesus 2. Or an alien or something.

Boxers only have a tiny amount of opportunity compared with other sports. You can play literally thousands of golf comps or tennis comps throughout a career comapred with only 50-100 fights. An undeafeated fighter, that has fought at the highest possible level around his weight-class, clearly is SPECIAL.

[erics44]

50 fights is a lot nowadays

[Kev]

Good point. If Tiger Woods NEVER lost a game millions would believe he was Jesus 2. Or an alien or something.


He would have had even more women queing up to fuck him

[Kev]

Reflecting on this a bit more, I actually think being unbeaten has an almost mystical quality to it.

Everybody loses, and hence is human, but someone who hasn't is still to an extent limitless and mythical.

Floyd has never been beat, and even though in our heads we all know everyone is beatable even his greatest critics on here subconsciously buy into his immortality as nobody ever picks any guy he's fighting to beat him.

Even Manny most favour to fall short against the mighty Floyd. Were he to have a loss that opinion would instantly change. Mosley is a joke opponent not worthy of even fighting Manny for example.

In sport people do still idolize and have hero's. Floyd's perfect record gives him a reputation that no other current fighter in the sport has. He would lose that reputation as soon as he lost a fight, and never regain it, as we would have seen his limits.

[greynotsoold]

Yes, a guy that has been fighting a long time against good opposition and is still undefeated has special merit. But it kind of gets tired when every single up and coming prospect is 24-0, so if he doesn't have at least 18-20 kos he is considered some how limited. Or if he has 3 or 4 or 5 early losses, that's it, despite the number of great fighters that weren't so good early on. (Monzon, Benny Leonard, Armstrong). It encourages young fighters to seek easy blow-out wins rather than quality outings that build better fighters.

[Kev]

Yes, a guy that has been fighting a long time against good opposition and is still undefeated has special merit. But it kind of gets tired when every single up and coming prospect is 24-0, so if he doesn't have at least 18-20 kos he is considered some how limited. Or if he has 3 or 4 or 5 early losses, that's it, despite the number of great fighters that weren't so good early on. (Monzon, Benny Leonard, Armstrong). It encourages young fighters to seek easy blow-out wins rather than quality outings that build better fighters.

Unfortunately it's necessary though and the fault of fans as much as anything. If a fighter loses coming up there is less interest in him and his career is affected. It is absolutely essential for any up and coming fighter with real prospects that they dont' have too many mistakes early on because as soon as they do the tv networks can't do anything with them.

Look at some of the top prospects in recent years whose losses have left them by the wayside. Joel Julio is just a gatekeeper now, a few years ago he was being tipped by Jim Lampley as a future star. Whetever happened to Ricardo Torres or Chazz Witherspoon?

As soon as you start losing you are effectively done in terms of having a succesful career of your own. At best you can continue to fight as a trialist for other prospects.

That is driven by the commercial aspect of the sport, which ultimately is all about giving the fans what they want. Fans forget fighters with disgusting ease, just witness the threads on any given weekend.

Any promotional outfit and management team worth anything will try and keep their best fighters unbeaten long enough for them to get mainstream exposure because if they slip up along the way the chances are high they will never get there, as we the fans won't want to see them.

[fan johnny]

I'd say it means more to the fighter with the unbeaten record than it does to the boxing fan.

Larry Merchant to Andre Berto,

"Is it possible, that tonight, um.. with this kind of fight, the kind of fight that thrills people, that you would get more recognition, than you did for all the fights you've won?"

Berto "I mean ah.. Maybe from you! ah... you know, cause ahmm... you said you wanted me to fight more exciting fights, but ahm.. there's nothing ah.. but ah.. nothn' worst than a loss, but I'm just going to take it, get back in the gym and maybe get better and you know ahm.... hopeful get back with a rematch"

What I got from that was Merchant, was that he now has more respect for Berto with a slug fest loss and feels most people view it like he does. I certainly do.

[Kev]

I'd say it means more to the fighter with the unbeaten record than it does to the boxing fan.

Larry Merchant to Andre Berto,

"Is it possible, that tonight, um.. with this kind of fight, the kind of fight that thrills people, that you would get more recognition, than you did for all the fights you've won?"

Berto "I mean ah.. Maybe from you! ah... you know, cause ahmm... you said you wanted me to fight more exciting fights, but ahm.. there's nothing ah.. but ah.. nothn' worst than a loss, but I'm just going to take it, get back in the gym and maybe get better and you know ahm.... hopeful get back with a rematch"

What I got from that was Merchant, was that he now has more respect for Berto with a slug fest loss and feels most people view it like he does. I certainly do.

Nah doesn't follow at all. The limelight will be on Ortiz now and although 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.

The boxing industry is more like the music and film industries than other sports. You stop making hits you get forgotten fast.

If he loses again he will virtually disappear as a headline fighter.

Just look at guys like Christian Mijares, Jorge Linares, Rey Bautista, Francisco Bojado etc.

Lose a big fight and it's a long road back. Lose another and if you have a second career to fall back on you may as well retire.

Berto can bounce back of course. But another defeat soon and he may join Bojado, Torres, Jermain Taylor etc in early retirement

[marbleheadmaui]

Are you saying Mayweather and Lopez are not all-time greats? They needed a loss to attain this status? Or they simply don't belong amongst the "greats?"

I think that opinion will be in the minority.

You can't compare boxing with ANY other sport. A loss in boxing is not the end but numerous losses most certainly is. Tiger Woods or Roger Federer could go years without winning but one great week and all is forgoten.

A fighter can only take so many losses before he becomes no longer relevant. Which means he doesn't even get a future chance of glory. Not only is his health at risk but his monetary value drops considerably. The "0" can be a great selling point - hence Mayweather-Hatton being billed as Undefeated.

I specifically noted not to fall for the "do you need to lose to be great" garb age argument. I am saying what made Finito great wasn't that he was unbeaten, it was that he wrecked that division. Had he lost the first fight with Bufalo, is he any less great?

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

The inability to distinguish between what Marciano did (so completely wreck the heavies that it took 18 months after he retired to find a new champ the public would accept) and what Mayweather has done (not face anywhere NEAR the moist challenging set of opponents) is puzzling to say the least.

Thanks for the welcome!

[marbleheadmaui]

Reflecting on this a bit more, I actually think being unbeaten has an almost mystical quality to it.

Everybody loses, and hence is human, but someone who hasn't is still to an extent limitless and mythical.

Floyd has never been beat, and even though in our heads we all know everyone is beatable even his greatest critics on here subconsciously buy into his immortality as nobody ever picks any guy he's fighting to beat him.

Even Manny most favour to fall short against the mighty Floyd. Were he to have a loss that opinion would instantly change. Mosley is a joke opponent not worthy of even fighting Manny for example.

In sport people do still idolize and have hero's. Floyd's perfect record gives him a reputation that no other current fighter in the sport has. He would lose that reputation as soon as he lost a fight, and never regain it, as we would have seen his limits.

It is only mystical if one3 has fought the best possible set of opponents. Otherwise? You get Joe Calzaghe and Swen Ottke. Two "undefeated" fighters in the same division from the same continent. And I'm supposed to think it carries weight? Nah.

[marbleheadmaui]

Yes, a guy that has been fighting a long time against good opposition and is still undefeated has special merit. But it kind of gets tired when every single up and coming prospect is 24-0, so if he doesn't have at least 18-20 kos he is considered some how limited. Or if he has 3 or 4 or 5 early losses, that's it, despite the number of great fighters that weren't so good early on. (Monzon, Benny Leonard, Armstrong). It encourages young fighters to seek easy blow-out wins rather than quality outings that build better fighters.

Unfortunately it's necessary though and the fault of fans as much as anything. If a fighter loses coming up there is less interest in him and his career is affected. It is absolutely essential for any up and coming fighter with real prospects that they dont' have too many mistakes early on because as soon as they do the tv networks can't do anything with them.

Look at some of the top prospects in recent years whose losses have left them by the wayside. Joel Julio is just a gatekeeper now, a few years ago he was being tipped by Jim Lampley as a future star. Whetever happened to Ricardo Torres or Chazz Witherspoon?

As soon as you start losing you are effectively done in terms of having a succesful career of your own. At best you can continue to fight as a trialist for other prospects.

That is driven by the commercial aspect of the sport, which ultimately is all about giving the fans what they want. Fans forget fighters with disgusting ease, just witness the threads on any given weekend.

Any promotional outfit and management team worth anything will try and keep their best fighters unbeaten long enough for them to get mainstream exposure because if they slip up along the way the chances are high they will never get there, as we the fans won't want to see them.

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.