The "0". Is it REALLY that important??

Some keep theirs by staying at home (e.g Sven Ottke, Brian Neilsen).

Some keep theirs by not facing the top-ranked opponents in their division whether their fault or not (e.g Calzaghe)

Some lose theirs when they drop a close decision (e.g Bowe, Dirrell, Holmes)

Some by getting complacent and then getting outboxed, knocked out by a punch they didn't see coming or just being intimidated (e.g Hamed, Khan, Lewis, Spinks)

Some just shrug and get on with things, vowing to come back better (Holyfield)

Whereas some others bleat and moan about it like they've just had their house burgled. (Khan again, although he had already lost his unbeaten record this time round, and also Froch spring to mind)

Some you win, some you lose - this is what boxing is all about. However, although often boxers think they're the absolute best in their divisions, seldom do they have the ability to back it up EVERY time. Some of the very best boxers have losses on their record and are not usually slated for it, whereas Joe Calzaghe who defeated everybody he faced gets torrents of abuse on these boards. I genuinely don't believe that the "0" matters that much, as fighters' records are often protected. The two best fighters in the heavyweight division today both have losses on their records; one by 3 catastrophic KOs. Does this mean he's a bad fighter? Absolutely not. Wlad has learned from these losses and with Steward's guidance has turned into someone very defensive and difficult to hit, thus negating his main weakness.

Bernard Hopkins never had an unbeaten record - it's never bothered him.

I do have a question though: Has there ever been a fighter who has faced nearly every top-ranked challenger and beaten them all? The only one I can think of is Ricardo Lopez, mainly due to him being head and shoulders above everyone else in his divisions (105 & 108lbs). Any others?

Hate to do this to your thread as Azania is going to go mental when he sees this but Marciano is pretty close, pages have been written on here about the strength of his era but think most everyone agrees the guys the Rock beat represented the best the era had to offer.

Sometimes it is ometimes it isnt it depends on what kind of quality you are and who you fight. Look at guys like Ottke or Bute who stay at home fighting nobodies nobody cares. But look at guys like Mayweather, Marciano or Calzaghe these guys were unbeaten but were absolute quality fighters so no arguments there.

Jeffries came mighty close to retiring undefeated, having cleaned out the heavyweight division. Had America not been obsessed with unseating Jack Johnson he would have been allowed to enjoy his retirement and wouldn't have a single loss on his record, though he did have a draw.

Hard to measure the overall quality of opposition during lightweight champion Jack McAuliffe's era, but he was a world champion who retired unbeaten, as was bantamweight Jimmy Barry.

Waingro wrote:Sometimes it is ometimes it isnt it depends on what kind of quality you are and who you fight. Look at guys like Ottke or Bute who stay at home fighting nobodies nobody cares. But look at guys like Mayweather, Marciano or Calzaghe these guys were unbeaten but were absolute quality fighters so no arguments there.

What?

The 0 is important, but only important if the fighter takes real fights. Simples.

The '0' is a strange phenomenon, seemingly much more important now than it used to be. My opinion is that it's a great testament to a fighter's abilities, but certainly not the be all and end all - give me Muhammad Ali's career over Rocky Marciano's every single day of the week, for example.

There's an old chestnut in boxing that if a fighter is undefeated, it simply means they haven't fought everyone they should have done. Given that notable fighters with the '0' such as Mayweather, Marciano, Ottke, Calzaghe etc have their opposition questioned and closely examined more than just about anyone else, it's a theory which stands up to a degree.

In the right instances, though, it's entirely appropriate to use a fighter's '0' to boost their rankings, be it contemporary ones or in an all-time sense. Mayweather has faced legitimate threats, a wide variety of styles and a host of men who, in some form or another, have held significant advantages over him and hasn't lost once. What's more, he's done this at the highest level and, with the exception of the first Castillo fight, has done it without any unpleasant stenches surrounding his victories (ie, sloppy judging, poor refereeing performances and the like). An '0' in the context of Ottke means little, but in the context of Mayweather, it really is a glowing sign of his greatness, even if there are a couple of notable names missing from his ledger.

As for a fighter who took on all comers and beat the lot of them, a possible suggestion of the modern era could be Pernell Whitaker (ignoring the pure larceny of the first Ramirez and then the Chavez decision, of course, and even the De la Hoya verdict was a contentious one to say the least). I'm not sure anyone of a similar weight could box the rounds he did against genuinely top class opposition and take fewer clean shots, and while his record shows defeats, I'd rank him ahead of the aforementioned undefeated fighters with no hesitation at all.

The '0' is far from meaningless, but it isn't the first thing to look at when evaluating a fighter's greatness.

It never used to be important in boxing as fighters would learn their trade. Loosing was part of the game until the fighter matured. Today the money that is involved means that keeping that 0 is all important as it keeps people paying to watch your fights.

If you can remain unbeaten for about 20 odd fights then you should have a decent following and name to look for the big money fights. Once that is secured then the 0 is not as important.

rowley wrote:Hate to do this to your thread as Azania is going to go mental when he sees this but Marciano is pretty close, pages have been written on here about the strength of his era but think most everyone agrees the guys the Rock beat represented the best the era had to offer.

Nothing to argue about. He beat the best of his era. Not his fault that his era was probably the porest in HW history. It makes today's era appear mammoth in comparison.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Hate to do this to your thread as Azania is going to go mental when he sees this but Marciano is pretty close, pages have been written on here about the strength of his era but think most everyone agrees the guys the Rock beat represented the best the era had to offer.

Nothing to argue about. He beat the best of his era. Not his fault that his era was probably the porest in HW history. It makes today's era appear mammoth in comparison.

The ' O ' is important, az.

The zero is vital on forums. Lets face it here, we all look to who beat who when trying to elevate our favourites and put down those we dont like. People can claim that JC is one of the best ever because of his 0 and claim he was proteted. But no-one can claim how to beat him because it wasn't done. People also foolishly claim that Rocky is amongst the best because of his 0.

Fo rme its not important so long as the boxer learns from it and moves onwards and upwards. Its not the be all and end all.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Hate to do this to your thread as Azania is going to go mental when he sees this but Marciano is pretty close, pages have been written on here about the strength of his era but think most everyone agrees the guys the Rock beat represented the best the era had to offer.

Nothing to argue about. He beat the best of his era. Not his fault that his era was probably the porest in HW history. It makes today's era appear mammoth in comparison.

The ' O ' is important, az.

Ha ha, tell you what Windy, for a man who's reportedly 168 years old, you're still pretty sharp up top, not too many marbles rolling around just yet.

Windy, what would this board be without you.

Yep. Samuel Peter and Mormeck's skills would have Walcott and LaStarza crying in their beds.

And Windy - you nearly made me spit my tea on my computer. Nice one sir.

Why thank you, Chris. You are a true gent.

EDIT : And az and oxy, also.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Hate to do this to your thread as Azania is going to go mental when he sees this but Marciano is pretty close, pages have been written on here about the strength of his era but think most everyone agrees the guys the Rock beat represented the best the era had to offer.

Nothing to argue about. He beat the best of his era. Not his fault that his era was probably the porest in HW history. It makes today's era appear mammoth in comparison.

You underestimate Marciano and his peers in that era of heavyweight boxing. Your assertion that the likes of Walcott, Moore, Louis, Charles were lacking commitment and passion would be laughed at by many experts.

Some fighters have to move up in weight in order to get bigger money fights (especially if they have cleaned out all the opposition in their own weight category), and hence can get unstuck when facing the more "naturally" heavier opponent.

What about Ricardo Lopez? He fought the best opposition available and retired undefeated. For some people the '0' is a mental thing and once they lose it they are never the same.

To be an '0' means nothing really, in most cases it means you haven't faced the best fighters. In other cases ala Mayweather and Ward it means you are just that good.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Hate to do this to your thread as Azania is going to go mental when he sees this but Marciano is pretty close, pages have been written on here about the strength of his era but think most everyone agrees the guys the Rock beat represented the best the era had to offer.

Nothing to argue about. He beat the best of his era. Not his fault that his era was probably the porest in HW history. It makes today's era appear mammoth in comparison.

You underestimate Marciano and his peers in that era of heavyweight boxing. Your assertion that the likes of Walcott, Moore, Louis, Charles were lacking commitment and passion would be laughed at by many experts.

Why do you like making stuff up and attributing it to others? If you want to have an argument, try children's bbc or something.

oxring wrote:Yep. Samuel Peter and Mormeck's skills would have Walcott and LaStarza crying in their beds.

And Windy - you nearly made me spit my tea on my computer. Nice one sir.

Cockell!

Simply put to me, if a fighter has an 0 you may want to scrutinise his record a bit more.

Lads, realise it was me that started by mentioning him but lets not do this again, am fairly sure Bounce did not write the thread to see the same Marciano debate revisited for the 300th time.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Simply put to me, if a fighter has an 0 you may want to scrutinise his record a bit more.

Cue some serious reserach into Eric Crumble's career.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Simply put to me, if a fighter has an 0 you may want to scrutinise his record a bit more.

Not more than any other record regardless of the 0. But when looking at records, lets be objective and not try to elevate the status of wasked up opponents and claim they fought the fight of their lives and disappeared without a trace afterwards.

rowley wrote:Lads, realise it was me that started by mentioning him but lets not do this again, am fairly sure Bounce did not write the thread to see the same Marciano debate revisited for the 300th time.

It isn't fresh and new for you every time? You Philistine.

I'm just playing hard to get Oxy, you know I love it, am hard at work on a Pele Reid vs Marciano fantasy match thread as we speak.

Doubtless Pele wins. After all, the only man to legitimately KO Vitali Klitschko will easily stop Marciano, who was known for being easy to stop.

Mr Bounce wrote:Some keep theirs by not facing the top-ranked opponents in their division whether their fault or not (e.g Calzaghe)

Apart from Sven Ottke who exactly did he not face? Are you suggesting Kessler, Lacy, Bika, Reid etc were not top-ranked opponents?

Bounce just like Lopez who you mentioned Calderon was very dominant at the 105 & 108lbs until he came across Segura who was a freak at the weight. The guys something ridiculous like 5ft 6.

Say for instance Tunney hadn't lost once to Greb how much scrutiny would be placed on his record, the only fighter you could possibly say he should have fought was Kid Norfolk, was in my opinion the second strongest era in the light heavyweight division and he beat them all.

Unfortunately it has taken on massive importance in the last few years...as If a Promoter feels it's the end of the World to lose a fight...

However I'm sure it's harmed the development of many fighters as I'm sure Boxing as in life is a place where you learn from your mistakes!!!

Let's face it how many tennis players and golfers get beat before they realise what they need to succeed...all of them!!..Not suggesting you need to lose..but do take fights that will extend you...

Not suggesting you should go crazy..but the easy option tends not to work..

oxring wrote:Doubtless Pele wins. After all, the only man to legitimately KO Vitali Klitschko will easily stop Marciano, who was known for being easy to stop.

Stops Ali too....After all Cooper knocked him down!!!