Agree or disagree?

Question

A FIGHTER RECORD IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF HOW GOOD HE IS.

U MUST LOOK AT HIS OPPONENTS AND THEIR RECORDS.
U MUST LOOK AT HIS OPPONENTS' OPPONENTS AND THEIR RECORDS.

A RECORD BY ITSELF CAN BE OVERRATED UNLESS IT IS EXAMINED.

Answer 1

Smitty ~

It's funny you brought this up, my wife brought me up my video collection last night and one of the movies was the 1956"The Harder They Fall." with Humphrey Bogart and Rod Steiger. This is a perfect example of life imitating art. In case some people here aren't familiar with the movie it's about a huge Argentinian boxer whose name is Toro Moreno, he can't fight is way out of a wet paper bag but has an undefeated record thanks to "The Boys" and Humphrey's job is to sell the public on Moreno.

There have been those "Great White Hypes" that fought against Jack Johnson and Ali none of these guys were even close in talent to their records. Larry Holmes destruction of super nice guy Gerry Cooney is another example, Gerry's biggest win came against a very old Ken Norton, but who else was on his padded resume'?

The most recent boxer padding his W's, is Heavyweight Valuev.

History is filled with them. Don't let the 0 fool you.

Answer 2

Yeah your definitely right on this one Smitty, i mean Valuev could probably go on to have the greatest record ever but he has beat absolutely nobody.
I would also say this about Marciano, he beat some great fighters but all of them were well past their primes when he beat them but you have to know a little beat about your boxing to understand this and not just look at his record. I dont mean that Rocky isnt a great i just mean when you examine the calibre of opponent compared to the fighters Ali fought against there is no comparison. Which proves your point because if you examine their fighter records for their careers Marciano obviously has the better record, but when you start looking into opponents they faced and what point in the careers of the opponent the fight was made then Ali has by far the better record.
I still think though that you will always get people who will just throw a stat at you without knowing the full facts behind it, they will just see it as a way of winning an argument. Our Russian Heavyweight fans on this site will be throwing Valuevs shoddy record at us for years to come to hide the fact that he is a very poor champion.

Answer 3

All of the above. I agree. A fighter with a padded record and who has fought a bunch of weak opposition usually doesn't fare well the first time their put in with someone who can actually fight. And a fighter that has a lot of losses but has fought quality opposition is usually underrated because of the amount of losses on his record. So it kinda works both ways. Say fighter A is 21-9, but with 8 of those losses coming against world class opposition, and fighter B is 28-0 but hasn't fought one single opponent of note, fighter B more than likely will still get all the attention because his record just looks better, while fighter A may actually be the bettter fighter of the two. So when examining a fighter's record, i always prefer the quality of opposition over the quantity.

Answer 4

Smitty I agree with you. To do this however takes alot of research. There are heavyweight fighters who hardly get a mention in some boxing books. I'll give you one great injustice in boxing history....Harry Wills. Burt Sugar, who I am beginning to have a dislike for, does no write up on Wills even though Wills beat Langford many many times . Langford is a highly ranked all time heavyweight by Sugar and is given an extensive write up. Harry Wills,
Gene Tunney, and Jack Dempsey were the best heavyweight fighters in that generation. Wills should be studied and should be in everyones top 20 best heavyweights. If Wills is forgotten, who else fought during this time that is forgotten?


Smitty after reading over some of the things written here how about the question that in some cases a mans record gives a very good indication of how good they are. Marciano and Valuev are both undefeated. Soon Valuev will be of the same record as Marciano if he is lucky. Put them side by side. Who would you pick to win this fight if they fought? People put Marciano down too much for his opponents. I would dare any heavyweight and I mean any heavyweight ever to stand in front of Marciano and try to punch it out with him. Throw the records away if we start talking about power punching.

Answer 5

I couldn't agree more. Quite a few people say that Hopkins has the second greatest title reign in history, based purely on the fact that he defended his title/s the second most times in history, and not on the quality of opposition he beat. I'm certain that even RING Magazine recognize that Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon beat boxers who were superior to William Joppy, Howard Eastman, Syd Vanderpool and Morrade Hakkar.

And about the aforementioned Julio Cesar Chavez Jr...he's 30-0-1 at the age of 21, and judging by his record, has been fighting nobodies. How boxrec.com have him ranked 69th in the Light Middle division, I'll never know. But then again, his old man was built up the same way...fed bodies until he took on Mario Martinez for the vacant WBC Super Feather weight title in his 45th fight, which, judging by HIS record, was his first real test (Martinez was 33-1-2 at the time).

As CJ said, this will most likely be the way Julio Cesar Chavez Jr will be matched. So when he gets to around the 40, 50 mark, look for him to get a title shot at Light Middle, probably against the title holder that presents him with the least risk - which would probably be Sergiy Dzinziruk - who has not beaten any real names himself (provided he still has the title, of course).

Answer 6

I totally agree with you Smitty. There are a number of fighters who have an undefeated record yet fight nobodies. You really should judge a fighter not by his record, but what he does in the ring. An example of a fighter who has such a record is Jorge Solis, Pacquiao's next opponent. He has an undefeated record, but if you look closely, his quality of opposition is of poor propotions. His supposed career-defining fight was against Humberto Soto. In that fight, it was ruled to be a no-contest in the third round. Another example is Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. He has an excellent record, but his oposition, if you will excuse my language, SUCK! I think he is overprotected. His father probably wants him to acclomplish what he himself could not, win 100 fights without losing one.
Good question, Mr. Smitty.

Answer 7

I strongly agree, Nicoli Valuev is almost 50-0 but with his resume I wouldn't put him in the top 5 right now. Both Klitchko"s have losses and Sam Peter. But I have all 3 ranked higher due to the fact that they have steeped up to fight quality opponents.

Answer 8

Yep, a padded record is not the best means of judging the skill level of a fighter. The Blogbaba agrees.

Answer 9

The record means EVERYTHING. Look at Rocky Marciano, the greatest boxer who ever lived. Larry Holmes was considered by most as #2 behind Marciano. Then you have other all time greats like LaMar Clark, Brian Nielson, and future Hall of Fame, and future greatest, Nicolay Valuev. If a batter bats .1000 nobody looks at the teams he played against. And if a QB made a touch down off of every throw, would he not be the greatest? If a boxer lost every single match they would not be considered a great. If Marciano lost every fight, we would be here talking about how he is the best who ever wore gloves.

Answer 10

Agreed.