[daprofessor]

You have mentioned GREAT fighters that were undefeated at that time prior to their loss. We have been blessed with the undefeated fighters who THINK they are the greatest ever. You should carry yourself in this manner at all times, but to not even live up to the reputation of being the best is simply unacceptable. Sure that '0' motivates a fighter to train hard, but if they continue to duck the best in exchange for fighting tomato cans to keep that '0'...then their confidence and security will always be questioned.

boxing is a business. sometimes fights do not materialize...for what ever reason, but i don't know that i can hold a fighter responsible for that every single time. sometimes promoters and managers won't allow their fighters to fight other tough/slick fighters...(*see bob arum) other times there just isn't any competition available (*see klitschkos or marciano) so all we have to go off is their accomplishments and how they performed against known fighters. it's great when all the planets align...and we get the big fights, but i won't lose any sleep over a guy claiming to be the best if i don't believe he is the best.

[daprofessor]

Robinson was 40-0 until his first lost. not no 70-0.

i was counting his amateur fights. that's why i mentioned them.

[Crafty]

I agree completely and I've been saying it for years. As a boxing community we should be putting less emphasis on an undefeated record, and more emphasis on big wins. Nowadays its better to keep your undefeated record by fighting bums than it is to step up against a legitimate opponent and lose, and that's BS. With MMA, and hardly any fighter going undefeated, I think this focus on undefeated records will slowly fade.

[Eighty88Eight]

i dont like this bullshit about devaluing victory. fuck that. if im rooting for you, you better win or die, motherfucker. i don't like that clown bullshit in MMA, they can have a hundred losses if they want, but this is boxing. Be the best in every fight you fight in, dummy. It's not ok to lose. Who do we give a shit about in boxing that's undefeated but hasn't fought anyone? Nobody. If somebody is trying to make an irrational argument about a fighter being better based on his undefeated record, don't engage in it. He's beneath ones intellectual capacities.

[daprofessor]

i dont like this bullshit about devaluing victory. fuck that. if im rooting for you, you better win or die, motherfucker. i don't like that clown bullshit in MMA, they can have a hundred losses if they want, but this is boxing. Be the best in every fight you fight in, dummy. It's not ok to lose. Who do we give a shit about in boxing that's undefeated but hasn't fought anyone? Nobody. If somebody is trying to make an irrational argument about a fighter being better based on his undefeated record, don't engage in it. He's beneath ones intellectual capacities.

totally agree. most knowledgeable fans are not fooled by undefeated records with no real comp.

[Eighty88Eight]

damn, i sound really angry in that post. that's one fire breathing fuck right there. im ok. i just need a hug. where's my wife?

[Cshel86]

boxing is a business. sometimes fights do not materialize...for what ever reason, but i don't know that i can hold a fighter responsible for that every single time. sometimes promoters and managers won't allow their fighters to fight other tough/slick fighters...(*see bob arum) other times there just isn't any competition available (*see klitschkos or marciano) so all we have to go off is their accomplishments and how they performed against known fighters. it's great when all the planets align...and we get the big fights, but i won't lose any sleep over a guy claiming to be the best if i don't believe he is the best.

Yeah I understand that portion of it...guess Im just through with new fighters attempting to use their "undefeated" record as a freakin' gate key to Utopia, when that method has been drilled into our heads by none other than you know who...

This post has been edited by cshel86: Aug 31 2011, 04:04 PM

[gravytrain]

boxing is a business. sometimes fights do not materialize...for what ever reason, but i don't know that i can hold a fighter responsible for that every single time. sometimes promoters and managers won't allow their fighters to fight other tough/slick fighters...(*see bob arum) other times there just isn't any competition available (*see klitschkos or marciano) so all we have to go off is their accomplishments and how they performed against known fighters. it's great when all the planets align...and we get the big fights, but i won't lose any sleep over a guy claiming to be the best if i don't believe he is the best.

fighters have been ducking opponents since the days of Jack Johnson but it's much worse than it's ever been. DLH took a lot of tough fights and didn't win all of them, his successor on the other hand has been a lot more careful in his choice of opponents. trying to say it's just Bob Arum is completely overlooking the era of boxing after DLH. and as it's there's no telling whether or not the top earner will continue to fight the rising star, the transition could be more like Pac filling the void Mayweather left.

boxing has always been a business but at one time it's also a legitimate sport. it's been drifting more and more towards sports entertainment over the years and it isn't by chance.

[Crafty]

We need more fight bonuses after the fact, so there will be more entertaining fights. In the UFC, a fighter can double his pay by having KO of the night, and fight of the night. Boxing needs something like this.

[daprofessor]

Yeah I understand that portion of it...guess Im just through with new fighters attempting to use their "undefeated" record as a freakin' gate key to Utopia, when that method has been drilled into our heads by none other than you know who...

i think some ppl take what 'u know who' says too seriously. i think part of it is him trying to convince himself.