It is so hard to compare fighters from deep in the past to fighters today. I was able to find a couple of losses by Armstrong in which he literally fought 11 and 12 days before the fights in which he lost. I have to believe that you are more prone to have a bad night, or maybe just not particularly give a f--k when you seriously fight every month. I think great fighters from the past are often exalted to a height that is simply not commensurate with their ability, but it's misleading to compare something like records when the fighters fought in such different worlds. I mean a world title fight against a truly legit challenger like Fritzie Zivic 11 days after a fight??? That's a seriously different era in boxing, no talented modern day fighter will ever have to do that again.Kalan wrote:Or rather he lost back to back fights to Joe Conde and Richie Fontaine in his mid 20's... 2 guys you never heard of.
Put it this way, say a great fighter today fought 200 fights over 16-18 years fighting once a month or so, and I don't even mean every guy has to be a stone killer, would they really go 200-0? I say no, because they will just not be at their best some nights, they won't be prepared some nights, they will just feel like crap some nights, and hey sometimes these other guys can fight a little too and they pull off a win. I suppose if you think guys like Valero, GGG, and Joshua would go 200-0, you are entitled to it, but I think the human condition (off nights, losing focus, aging,) gets everyone.
38 votes