49-0 Is Not THE Record

[punchoutsb]

[*]m

A DRAW IS NOT A LOSE I CAN WIN 1 FIGHT DRAW 7 AND I'M STILL UNDEFEATED THATS THE BOTTOM LINE

A draw is not a win either. You can win one fight and draw seven and you don't have a perfect record, though you may be undefeated.

Anyway Mayweather can be 49-0 or 50-0 Lopez holds the modern day record end of story 51 wins never defeated

And Rocky holds the record for most wins on a perfect record. Or winning percentage, however you'd like to word it. A draw means a record is no longer unblemished or perfect. Not that hard to understand clive

[world ranked]

Cesar Cuenca the guy who just one the IBF 140 title can get that record as well shortly

[Tony1244]

Sugar Ray Robinson went 129-1-2 during a streak in his career, which isn't too bad.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I believe Marciano holds the record for having the most wins out of anyone who retired with a perfect record (i.e. wins in every bout).

If that's true, and I'm confident it is, a boxer who retires for good at 50-0 would surpass Marciano for the most wins on a perfect and final record.

Marciano is not the man who exited the ring the most times without a defeat.

I think that is a more relevant mark when you are talking about boxing.

Yes but he has the highest number where they are ALL WINS. Pissing around with semantics doesn't change that. A draw is not a win is it?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Marciano's mark has a little less relevance to Mayweather than folks are giving it.

And it isn't even the best mark anyone has retired with.

It is the mark for heavyweights, nothing more nothing less.

Of more relevance to Floyd are the records of Jim Barry, who fought in the late 19th century (59-0-9 with 2 NC)
and Ricardo Lopez (51-0-1).

That's 70 and 52 fights without a defeat if you are counting.

To me, it is the best indicator that Floyd will fight at least once more after the current contract is done.

We know he has an ego. And 50-0 is an iconic mark to add to the short list of other marks in boxing.

I'm sorry mate, but whether you like Floyd or not, if he goes 50-0 - he will have the best statistical resume in boxing, having 100% wins, and 1 more than Marciano. A draw is a draw is a draw, you can't act like it is a win.

[Boxing Prospect]

Stats are misleading, the longest active winning run is more than 50 bouts (though the guy lost 4 of his first 5)...yet no one is talking up his achievements because the guy in question has fought crap opponents...

[jamesmcdonnell]

Stats are misleading, the longest active winning run is more than 50 bouts (though the guy lost 4 of his first 5)...yet no one is talking up his achievements because the guy in question has fought crap opponents...

Is it really hard to understand the point here.

We are talking about no defeats, no draws here. We are not talking about longest active winning run, because if we were then Ray Robinson wins hands down.

[Taansend]

Rocky's record of 49-0 is misleading too.

He turned pro, won his debut then went back to amateur boxing (his trainer didn't think he was ready yet). He won & lost a few more amateur bouts then returned to his pro career sixteen months after his debut.

So his record should be 48-0 or something like 53-2.

The record is for pro fights, not amateur ones.

So boxers can flit back and forth between codes then?

[Boxing Prospect]

Stats are misleading, the longest active winning run is more than 50 bouts (though the guy lost 4 of his first 5)...yet no one is talking up his achievements because the guy in question has fought crap opponents...

Is it really hard to understand the point here.

We are talking about no defeats, no draws here. We are not talking about longest active winning run, because if we were then Ray Robinson wins hands down.

My point is STATS are misleading. There is no stopping someone from doing something similar to what Noknoi has done and reel off 50, 60 or 70 wins in Thailand against distinctly abject opposition just to set a new "record".

RE longest "active" winning streak, I didn't realise Robinson was still active...or that he was on much of a winning streak...for what it's worth Robinson's longest winning streak is 40 wins (to begin his career), he did have several runs of more than 30 wins though. Heck Noknoi's ACTIVE run beats that in terms of fights.

Also...did you forget Chavez went 87-0? Worth noting Pep went 62-0 as well.

Interesting that Roman Gonzalez is only a few wins away from 50-0, Wanheng Menayothin will likely be 40-0 by the end of this year as well.

[Taansend]

Stats are misleading, the longest active winning run is more than 50 bouts (though the guy lost 4 of his first 5)...yet no one is talking up his achievements because the guy in question has fought crap opponents...

Is it really hard to understand the point here.

We are talking about no defeats, no draws here. We are not talking about longest active winning run, because if we were then Ray Robinson wins hands down.

My point is STATS are misleading. There is no stopping someone from doing something similar to what Noknoi has done and reel off 50, 60 or 70 wins in Thailand against distinctly abject opposition just to set a new "record".

RE longest "active" winning streak, I didn't realise Robinson was still active...or that he was on much of a winning streak...for what it's worth Robinson's longest winning streak is 40 wins (to begin his career), he did have several runs of more than 30 wins though. Heck Noknoi's ACTIVE run beats that in terms of fights.

Also...did you forget Chavez went 87-0? Worth noting Pep went 62-0 as well.

Interesting that Roman Gonzalez is only a few wins away from 50-0, Wanheng Menayothin will likely be 40-0 by the end of this year as well.

Didn't Chavez lose his 2nd pro fight by dq only to have it overturned by some shady shenanigans?

Not having a go at any boxer, just remembering tales from that time.

[Boxing Prospect]

My point is STATS are misleading. There is no stopping someone from doing something similar to what Noknoi has done and reel off 50, 60 or 70 wins in Thailand against distinctly abject opposition just to set a new "record".

RE longest "active" winning streak, I didn't realise Robinson was still active...or that he was on much of a winning streak...for what it's worth Robinson's longest winning streak is 40 wins (to begin his career), he did have several runs of more than 30 wins though. Heck Noknoi's ACTIVE run beats that in terms of fights.

Also...did you forget Chavez went 87-0? Worth noting Pep went 62-0 as well.

Interesting that Roman Gonzalez is only a few wins away from 50-0, Wanheng Menayothin will likely be 40-0 by the end of this year as well.

Didn't Chavez lose his 2nd pro fight by dq only to have it overturned by some shady shenanigans?

Not having a go at any boxer, just remembering tales from that time.[/quote]

There was an early loss on there somewhere that was over-turned, not sure if it was his 2nd fight but it was early in his career, further showing his misleading stats can be

[crusader]

Rocky's record of 49-0 is misleading too.

He turned pro, won his debut then went back to amateur boxing (his trainer didn't think he was ready yet). He won & lost a few more amateur bouts then returned to his pro career sixteen months after his debut.

So his record should be 48-0 or something like 53-2.

The record is for pro fights, not amateur ones.

So boxers can flit back and forth between codes then?

I don't think they can do it freely, at least not anymore, but the facts are that Marciano was allowed to and he won all his professional bouts.

[crusader]

Yes, stats can be misleading and I think most knowledgable fans will agree that Floyd won't have the best resume of all time even if he goes 50-0. Him holding the record would just be a matter of quantity and not quality, which is why I chuckle when some people get highly defensive and are quick to point out that people like Chavez, Marciano, and Lopez beat lesser opposition. If it's going to be a matter of quality and not simply quantity, why exclude many of the greats who have better resumes than Floyd but took a loss along the way?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes, stats can be misleading and I think most knowledgable fans will agree that Floyd won't have the best resume of all time even if he goes 50-0. Him holding the record would just be a matter of quantity and not quality, which is why I chuckle when some people get highly defensive and are quick to point out that people like Chavez, Marciano, and Lopez beat lesser opposition. If it's going to be a matter of quality and not simply quantity, why exclude many of the greats who have better resumes than Floyd but took a loss along the way?

Nobody here is claiming his resume is the best.

There's many fighters with better resumes, that's not what is being discussed here. It is Marciano's record, and floyds.

For what it's worth, Floyd's resume is better than Marcianos. The best names on Marciano's resume were past their primes, or in the wrong weight division.

[crusader]

Uh...okay.

I never suggested that anyone here was claiming that Mayweather has the best resume or that the topic was about that. I'm acknowledging BP's points about the limitations of going by records and that I've seen many people, not necessarily on here, get defensive about Floyd's unbeaten mark when others bring up people like Lopez and Chavez, even though the historical Marciano mark he's on the verge of breaking is simply a matter of quantity and not quality.

[tiny_acres]

Yes, stats can be misleading and I think most knowledgable fans will agree that Floyd won't have the best resume of all time even if he goes 50-0. Him holding the record would just be a matter of quantity and not quality, which is why I chuckle when some people get highly defensive and are quick to point out that people like Chavez, Marciano, and Lopez beat lesser opposition. If it's going to be a matter of quality and not simply quantity, why exclude many of the greats who have better resumes than Floyd but took a loss along the way?

Nobody here is claiming his resume is the best.

There's many fighters with better resumes, that's not what is being discussed here. It is Marciano's record, and floyds.

For what it's worth, Floyd's resume is better than Marcianos. The best names on Marciano's resume were past their primes, or in the wrong weight division.

I have never seen a single post anywhere that claims Floyd has the best resume of all time.
But I agree with you it is miles ahead of Marciano's.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes, stats can be misleading and I think most knowledgable fans will agree that Floyd won't have the best resume of all time even if he goes 50-0. Him holding the record would just be a matter of quantity and not quality, which is why I chuckle when some people get highly defensive and are quick to point out that people like Chavez, Marciano, and Lopez beat lesser opposition. If it's going to be a matter of quality and not simply quantity, why exclude many of the greats who have better resumes than Floyd but took a loss along the way?

Nobody here is claiming his resume is the best.

There's many fighters with better resumes, that's not what is being discussed here. It is Marciano's record, and floyds.

For what it's worth, Floyd's resume is better than Marcianos. The best names on Marciano's resume were past their primes, or in the wrong weight division.

I have never seen a single post anywhere that claims Floyd has the best resume of all time.
But I agree with you it is miles ahead of Marciano's.

If Floyd does go 50-0 - he will have done it against a far more impressive roster - Marciano was in an era where most of the talent was ancient by the time they got to him, or at least well past their best.

[Tomasino]

Stats are misleading, the longest active winning run is more than 50 bouts (though the guy lost 4 of his first 5)...yet no one is talking up his achievements because the guy in question has fought crap opponents...

Is it really hard to understand the point here.

We are talking about no defeats, no draws here. We are not talking about longest active winning run, because if we were then Ray Robinson wins hands down.

Is it not Julio Caesar Chavez?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Stats are misleading, the longest active winning run is more than 50 bouts (though the guy lost 4 of his first 5)...yet no one is talking up his achievements because the guy in question has fought crap opponents...

Is it really hard to understand the point here.

We are talking about no defeats, no draws here. We are not talking about longest active winning run, because if we were then Ray Robinson wins hands down.

Is it not Julio Caesar Chavez?

Actually you may be right, I'm not sure how many Robinson reeled off after his loss to LaMotta before losing again.

[493dart]

since when is floyd 49-0 ?

castillo loss
maidana I draw

47-1-1 is floyds real record, if we wanna talk truth, than thats the truth.

EXACTLY !

[Badhusker]

The ATG lists or records is really anyone's opinion, so I don't get too caught up in it. I doubt if even 5% of the people on this board have even seen a video of any of the ATG's that are mentioned, especially before 1970. I have, and think there are a half dozen that deserve mention, but some mentioned are not worthy. Some of the guys mentioned are very sloppy in their technique, but busy enough and had enough heart to beat most guys. Even later on, people that think SRL would smoke Floyd I doubt have seen anything about SRL besides highlights.

Boxing technique has improved over the years, and I would say with confidence that the best technical guys today are better than the best technical guys of yesterday. Its really hard to compare eras, so I don't attempt to. I would put the best guys today against the best of yesterday any day, without hesitation. They have so many advantages in training, nutrition, etc.

So no, 49-0 may not be the record, but I for one don't care.

[jamesmcdonnell]

The ATG lists or records is really anyone's opinion, so I don't get too caught up in it. I doubt if even 5% of the people on this board have even seen a video of any of the ATG's that are mentioned, especially before 1970. I have, and think there are a half dozen that deserve mention, but some mentioned are not worthy. Some of the guys mentioned are very sloppy in their technique, but busy enough and had enough heart to beat most guys. Even later on, people that think SRL would smoke Floyd I doubt have seen anything about SRL besides highlights.

Boxing technique has improved over the years, and I would say with confidence that the best technical guys today are better than the best technical guys of yesterday. Its really hard to compare eras, so I don't attempt to. I would put the best guys today against the best of yesterday any day, without hesitation. They have so many advantages in training, nutrition, etc.

So no, 49-0 may not be the record, but I for one don't care.

I do not agree whatsoever that boxing technique has improved.

Feinting, parrying and catching shots, and body punching seem to have become almost losts arts, with only a few modern fighters using those techniques.

I'm not so sure that the advantages in training and nutrition are anywhere near as significant as you opine - let me give you a couple of examples - back in Louis' era, fighters diets were very high in fat and protein content, steak and eggs was the classic fighters dinner - precisely the kind of diets that have come back into fashion for athletes, and especially those looking to control weight.

Bob Fitzsimmons training regime, included long 10 mile walks, interspersed with sprints, and hill climbing, or as it is now known - interval training.

If the modern techniques are so much better, then how do you explain that fighters especially in the higher divisions are often ponderous affairs, especially at heavyweight - yet Ali, Norton, Frazier, Louis, Marciano et al, used to fight at a lick for 15 rounds? I've not seen a top flight heavyweight fight fought at that pace, since Holyfield and Bowe's first two fights.

Fighters of the past - especially pre 1970, fought a lot more often, and therefore had far more time to learn and practice technique in a real world setting - the range of techniques they were exposed to and the hours they got of actual combat were far higher than today.

Now I am not saying that the past is always better - far from it - Mayweather would have been competitive in any era - though I think he would have been up against it - certainly at Welter - in SRL's era - and I'm old enough to have watched all of those fights first time around - and have watched many of them again and again.

Imagine how many titles Ray Robinson would have won in the modern era - he would probably with weight cutting, been able to win titles all the way from light welterweight - maybe even lightweight, to light heavyweight - he would undoubtedly have won a title at 175 in the era of multiple belt holders, plus at 154 and 168, weight classes which didn't exist in his era.

Henry Armstrong the same, Archie Moore, and many many others would have been able to add many more baubles to their collections.

The proliferation of titles has allowed for cherry picking on a scale old timer fighters couldn't have dreamt of, and it does warp a sense of fighters achievements.

[keithmoonhangover]

My understanding of the record is this.

All wins. No losses or draws. Retire with a 100% record.

[TheWigwam]

Cuenca has 2 no contests I believe, so it won't count

[Badhusker]

There are several guys in the past that would have beaten the 49-0 record if they also retired at age 31 like Marciano did. Most boxers stay in the game too long.