It has happened again, I speak to friends or acquaintances and without fail they bring up a fighter’s undefeated record as a line of defense to decipher how good the boxer is. We all know how it goes, Floyd says, "43 have tried and 43 have failed" and Adrien Broner with an air of confidence replies to Guerrero during a face off on Youtube, "I still got my 0, I still got my 0". Thank God that Canelo and Ward won’t boast, but my friends and their fans proudly do so for them. Does it really matter? Shouldn't we consider their fearlessness, excitement, and brilliance in the ring regardless of the outcome? Perfect picture to recall such an occasion is Rios vs Alvarado or Bradley vs Provodnikov leaving all of us breathless. My case before them and to someone else today was for them to consider these fighter’s records (along with the two undefeated ones).
JM Marquez: 55 (40) – 6 -1
Manny Pacquiao: 54 (38) – 5 – 2
Bernard Hopkins: 53 (32) – 2 -2
Vitali Klitschko: 45 (41) – 2
W. Klitschko: 59 (50) – 3
Joe Calzaghe: 46 (32) – 0
Floyd Mayweather Jr 43 (26) - 0
I will re-post a response I gave earlier to continue the conversation:
Being an undefeated boxer does not tell all we need to know about a fighter’s superiority or level of greatness. There is more merit in fighting mandatories, top ranked competitors, and having a handful of losses then "the other option". You will probably do your diligent work to analyze Calzaghe’s career saying "who is that" or "that guy is past his prime". The same can be said about Pretty Boy Floyd’s resume… True merit goes to those who fought them all — win, lose, or draw. Bernard Hopkins, 53 (32) - 2 -2, will be my example for this case. He made 20 successful defenses of his middleweight title, cleaned out his division, and holds an impressive resume (an undefeated Glen Johnson, Antwun Echols, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Joppy, & Pavlik). Losses (similar to his) that come from top tier fighters in their prime are badges of honor, not blemishes.