Acknowledgement of undefeated boxers

[Ferbian]

Now I would like to start off with saying that I'm rather dry in the boxing section, having a fairly limited knowledge, so bear with me please.

Onto topic.

Looking through the history of boxing, there's been only a handful (that I know of) boxers that has gone through their complete career from start to retirement, undefeated, guy's that comes to mind: Joe Calzaghe, Terry Marsh, Mihai Leu (In his professional career) and Sven Ottke (also professional career)

While we can certainly say it's an incredible feature to have fought yourself through a career in a business that revolves around fighting and rendering your opponent to the point of which you either defeat him simply because you did better throughout the fight, or knocked him out.

But while we look at it, these guy's (again, my knowledge is limited, you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong here) aren't acknowledged to the length of which guys who accomplished a lot in their career through winning championships and putting out an impression as what could be possibly be argued for hours of which one was the better boxer, guy's I'm thinking of in particular would be Mike Tyson and Muhammed Ali, guy's who didn't end their careers undefeated, Mike tyson carrying a 58 fights 6 losses (and two no contests) and Muhammed Ali carrying a 61 fights with 5 losses 8and no draws or no contests).

These two "greats" are guy's you talk about to this day when you talk about boxing in general, and accomplishment wise, but shouldn't a guy like Joe Calzaghe, unifying 4 belts "under 1 banner" or more like under 1 boxer, and soon afterwards announcing his retirement with a statistic that says 46 fights and 0 defeats, shouldn't Calzaghe be considered one of the greater ones, if not up on the level of Tyson and Ali simply because of this?

Personally I think while Tyson and Ali definitely contributed to the Boxing world and accomplished great things throughout their careers, both in Boxing hall of fames (Ali in the International boxing hall of fame and Tyson in the World boxing hall of fame) if I was to study the world of boxing in say, 20.. 30 years and not having any knowledge of these boxers except for their win loss statistics, I would go on to praise Joe Calzaghe as perhaps the better one.

So what do you think? do you think an undefeated boxer should be acknowledged as much if not more than guys like Ali and Tyson who are definitely legends of the boxing world?

 

[jmt225]

Well, Ferbian, you forgot one huge name on your list, and that's Rocky Marciano, who, believe it or not, is regarded up there with the likes of Ali and Tyson as the greatest Heavyweight boxer to ever live. In fact, many think he is the flat out best, just because he was never defeated.

Anyway, the reason a lot of undefeated fighters don't get the recognition they perhaps deserve is because with someone like Joe Calzaghe.... who exactly did he ever beat? His biggest wins are against past 40-year-olds Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins, with the Hopkins decision being fairly controversial. And in both of those fights Joe was knocked down early on, and never dropped either Hopkins or Jones Jr.

And the rest of the fighters you mentioned man... who did they ever defeat? I mean, seriously?

Moreover, the way you win your fights is important as well. Calzaghe had an undefeated record with his biggest wins/fights being decision. People won't be impressed by that.

You can say Mike Tyson never defeated anybody, but the way he defeated people... I mean, people were blown away by it. The dude compiled a record for himself of 37-0 in just four years, with 33 of those wins by knockouts. Of course people are going to respect that accomplishment more than someone like Calzaghe going undefeated in his career.

And then you look at someone like Ali, who sure got a few losses on his record, but still fought the best of the best his time had to offer, and beat the living hell out of the majority of them, while also giving the fans a show they'll never forget.

So, yeah... it's simple, man, if you want to be remembered in boxing, flashiness and knocking motherfuckers out is the way to go about being so. It's as simple as that. If you have a record of 100-0, but yet all those wins were against no-names or fighters well passed their prime, and also a good majority of them decisions, people aren't going to be blown away by that. It's all about who you beat, and how you beat them. If you beat the best, and do so by knockout or complete domination, then you will be considered the best. Simple as that.

 

[Ferbian]

Well, Ferbian, you forgot one huge name on your list, and that's Rocky Marciano, who, believe it or not, is regarded up there with the likes of Ali and Tyson as the greatest Heavyweight boxer to ever live. In fact, many think he is the flat out best, just because he was never defeated.

I must honestly admit I didn't do much more than search for Joe Calzaghe, as I mentioned I'm not very knowledged in the boxing world even though I've incredibly casually followed it since I was 6 years old (kinda died out around age 10) and Joe Calzaghe's name had a mentioning that he was one of a few undefeated European boxers, which are those on the list I mentioned, that's why I haven't included Rocky Marciano.

Anyway, the reason a lot of undefeated fighters don't get the recognition they perhaps deserve is because with someone like Joe Calzaghe.... who exactly did he ever beat? His biggest wins are against past 40-year-olds Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins, with the Hopkins decision being fairly controversial. And in both of those fights Joe was knocked down early on, and never dropped either Hopkins or Jones Jr.

Yeah I heard a lot of stuff about the Hopkins victory, and something about Joe wanting to fight him again, but Hopkins declining it (could be someone else although that someone else called out, I'm not quite sure)

And the rest of the fighters you mentioned man... who did they ever defeat? I mean, seriously?

I can't quite say really, seeing as some of the places I tried to read up on them, had absolutely no listing of who they faced whatsoever, and they barely even list any victories of worthwhile championships as far as I know of "worthy championships" which I would honestly have to admit I only know of the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO championship, and that's again only through reading on it, only having seen the WBA and WBC titles defended because those are the titles Kessler held.

Moreover, the way you win your fights is important as well. Calzaghe had an undefeated record with his biggest wins/fights being decision. People won't be impressed by that.

Certainly some of his bigger wins (including the Kessler and Hopkins fight being ended by decision, which I was utterly saddened that Kessler had to loose his, excuse the language, effing undefeated streak through a damn decision!) were ended by decisions, but we can't deny that even if the people he faced didn't exactly have the wow factor and background of a hall of fame to be boxer, a win is a win and having fought 46 fights and coming out on top undefeated with 32 knockouts, I'd call that impressive.

And again, we have to remember if you, as I mentioned, look back in 20-30 years, unless you read up on the boxers, you wouldn't know if Joe Calzaghe beat world champions for a living, or low ranked boxers who kisses their ass to a title number 1 contender spot.

You can say Mike Tyson never defeated anybody, but the way he defeated people... I mean, people were blown away by it. The dude compiled a record for himself of 37-0 in just four years, with 33 of those wins by knockouts. Of course people are going to respect that accomplishment more than someone like Calzaghe going undefeated in his career.

I completely agree, we shouldn't take anything away from Mike Tyson, and we shouldn't from Ali neither, because after all they've gone through an amazing career that will certainly be remembered by those who had the chance to properly experience it, I'm just saying why can't an undefeated boxer like Joe Calzaghe etc. go on to be just as acknowledged, not just because he held a few titles, went undefeated for X amount of matches, but because he too accomplished something in his career that's certainly memorable, I mean I certainly would say decision or not, defeating another at that time undefeated boxer is a feature, especially looking back at how much damn hype that match got in Denmark, hell you couldn't have a commercial break without it being mentioned.

And then you look at someone like Ali, who sure got a few losses on his record, but still fought the best of the best his time had to offer, and beat the living hell out of the majority of them, while also giving the fans a show they'll never forget.

I don't think I need to add much to this, seeing as I've pretty much filled it out talking about Tyson.

So, yeah... it's simple, man, if you want to be remembered in boxing, flashiness and knocking motherfuckers out is the way to go about being so. It's as simple as that. If you have a record of 100-0, but yet all those wins were against no-names or fighters well passed their prime, and also a good majority of them decisions, people aren't going to be blown away by that. It's all about who you beat, and how you beat them. If you beat the best, and do so by knockout or complete domination, then you will be considered the best. Simple as that.

I completely agree with that, it's quite proved that the best way for someone to remember you and to talk about you for years to come is by having some clash of "titans" in a well hyped match between two boxers of their prime, or equal place in career (as in two greats on the way out could probably do the same thing) as opposed to someone who, while being able to put on some well placed fights here and there, and certainly having the feature of "blowing out the candle" on his career being undefeated but leaving little for people to talk about in years to come.
While I do believe that Tyson and Ali are most likely still gonna be discussed in 20-30 years when talking about the greatest boxer of all time pound for pound etc. I'm still gonna stand by the thought that you can't discount a boxer just because he didn't defeat some big names, but only went undefeated to a majority of lesser names who will certainly never even be put up to consideration of being a great.

And on an off note, I must damn well admit I had to erase a lot here and there when writing the word "boxer" cause I was half way through writing the word "wrestler"..