BoxRec

The WBC minimumweight champ and BoxRec #2 won yesterday to move to 48-0. He's already fought 4 times this year, so could we be seeing him reach 50-0 before 2018? Stay tuned...

48-0 counting only 8 decent opponents (16.7%) , this way he can achieve 100-0. I give more valor to guys like Thammanoon Niyomtrong (Knockout CP Freshmart) with few but with more skilled defeated opponents (44%).

Yep, no doubt there are a lot of weak names on his record, but he's got those 48 wins! I think him and Knockout CP have the same promoter, and it seems like they're being kept away from each other.

TBE! TBE! TBE!

His last opponent had only won 21 of his 67 fights, having tasted defeat 44 times... with only two wins since 2008 (or two victories in his last 41 bouts).

Enlightened-One wrote:His last opponent had only won 21 of his 67 fights, having tasted defeat 44 times... with only two wins since 2008 (or two victories in his last 41 bouts).

He's fought that chap - Jack Amisa - three times. Why does he keep having six or eight rounders in between title fights? I can't recall other world champions doing the same thing.

I would like to see him against Niyamtrong who I think is the better fighter and would just shade it...

I think non-title fights like that are pretty common in Thailand. Wonjongkam had loads of them and fought several 0-0 listed guys.

Oh I see, thanks. I haven't really taken much notice of Thai boxing until fairly recently but have been following Niyamtrong for a while...

imaioral wrote:48-0 counting only 8 decent opponents (16.7%) , this way he can achieve 100-0. I give more valor to guys like Thammanoon Niyomtrong (Knockout CP Freshmart) with few but with more skilled defeated opponents (44%).

Mayweather hasn't really fought the absolute top for many many years either. Better as Wanheng, but most of his opponents got beaten as well both before, as well as after Mayweather.

asdfjkl wrote:

imaioral wrote:48-0 counting only 8 decent opponents (16.7%) , this way he can achieve 100-0. I give more valor to guys like Thammanoon Niyomtrong (Knockout CP Freshmart) with few but with more skilled defeated opponents (44%).

Mayweather hasn't really fought the absolute top for many many years either. Better as Wanheng, but most of his opponents got beaten as well both before, as well as after Mayweather.

Jesus, I didn't read that... So the "few" 23 top 5 start opponents (47% of all May opponents, most of them between top10 at the fighting time) are nothing? He fought crap opponents of ridiculous career records? He is between top5 best boxers of all times from nothing? STFU man... Go study more the Noble Art buddy, don't compare a legend with an undefeated fake boxer with limited skill.

TMT = the Menayothin team
TBE = thai boxing extraordinaire

imaioral wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

imaioral wrote:48-0 counting only 8 decent opponents (16.7%) , this way he can achieve 100-0. I give more valor to guys like Thammanoon Niyomtrong (Knockout CP Freshmart) with few but with more skilled defeated opponents (44%).

Mayweather hasn't really fought the absolute top for many many years either. Better as Wanheng, but most of his opponents got beaten as well both before, as well as after Mayweather.

Jesus, I didn't read that... So the "few" 23 top 5 start opponents (47% of all May opponents, most of them between top10 at the fighting time) are nothing? He fought crap opponents of ridiculous career records? He is between top5 best boxers of all times from nothing? STFU man... Go study more the Noble Art buddy, don't compare a legend with an undefeated fake boxer with limited skill.

Oh he's a good boxer, one of the best in fact, but it's not like he's currently the best and there have been moments in his carreer where he avoided the best. Or fought good guys who already had a loss on their names while there were other, possibly better boxers out there.
Klitschko genuinly fought the best guys out there during the last 6 or so years of his carreer if he had the chance. We can't say that of Mayweather, including today.

This is a perfect example of why people need to place less emphasis on the amount of wins and losses are on a fighter's record. He is a fine fighter, of course, with lots of wins over top 15 opponents and 2 wins over then top 5 opponents. But nevertheless, you can't rate a 48-0 fighter like Menayothin over a 24-2-2 fighter like Erislandy Lara or a 9-1 fighter like Lomanchenko. Quantity of wins don't matter, quantity of losses don't matter; you have to look at the full context of whether the defeats were in-prime, how good the opposition was, how decisive the outcomes were, etc. If you beat 50 bums, that doesn't mean you're special. If you lose to the best fighter in the world, that doesn't mean you're not the second best fighter in the world. The raw quantity of wins and losses should not be given any weight.

Lackeos wrote:This is a perfect example of why people need to place less emphasis on the amount of wins and losses are on a fighter's record. He is a fine fighter, of course, with lots of wins over top 15 opponents and 2 wins over then top 5 opponents. But nevertheless, you can't rate a 48-0 fighter like Menayothin over a 24-2-2 fighter like Erislandy Lara or a 9-1 fighter like Lomanchenko. Quantity of wins don't matter, quantity of losses don't matter; you have to look at the full context of whether the defeats were in-prime, how good the opposition was, how decisive the outcomes were, etc. If you beat 50 bums, that doesn't mean you're special. If you lose to the best fighter in the world, that doesn't mean you're not the second best fighter in the world. The raw quantity of wins and losses should not be given any weight.

The OP knows this. He's merely making fun of the fact that Mayweather supporters will harp about his 50-0 record as if that in and of itself is all it takes for him to be the best ever.

Mayweather still isn't one of the 10 best fighters ever, but he's an ATG, and the best boxer so far of the 21st century.

Ya, partially that, and partially because it's fun to track this type of thing. It's still a record people seem to care about, and despite pretty much all the 50-0 talk focusing on Floyd, Wanheng is closing in and could surpass him soon!

Floyd already had a stronger record than anyone who is still unbeaten...

Lackeos wrote:This is a perfect example of why people need to place less emphasis on the amount of wins and losses are on a fighter's record. He is a fine fighter, of course, with lots of wins over top 15 opponents and 2 wins over then top 5 opponents. But nevertheless, you can't rate a 48-0 fighter like Menayothin over a 24-2-2 fighter like Erislandy Lara or a 9-1 fighter like Lomanchenko. Quantity of wins don't matter, quantity of losses don't matter; you have to look at the full context of whether the defeats were in-prime, how good the opposition was, how decisive the outcomes were, etc. If you beat 50 bums, that doesn't mean you're special. If you lose to the best fighter in the world, that doesn't mean you're not the second best fighter in the world. The raw quantity of wins and losses should not be given any weight.

True Cuenca at 140 was 48-0 before losing his world title.

I know nothing about the weight class. Does he have any good wins ?


I'll generally watch any weight as long as fights are decent. Think last time I watched a fight at this weight was a unification in Mexico which got ESPN fight of the year. Takayama v Rodriguez I think mental fight as well.

It menayothin has a unification I would watch though.

chinarich wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:His last opponent had only won 21 of his 67 fights, having tasted defeat 44 times... with only two wins since 2008 (or two victories in his last 41 bouts).

He's fought that chap - Jack Amisa - three times. Why does he keep having six or eight rounders in between title fights? I can't recall other world champions doing the same thing.

I would like to see him against Niyamtrong who I think is the better fighter and would just shade it...

Rungvsai has done the same

6-rounders aren't the coolest thing in the world, but I wish there were anybody else at championship level fighting four times a year.

Naandrew wrote:I know nothing about the weight class. Does he have any good wins ?

I'll generally watch any weight as long as fights are decent. Think last time I watched a fight at this weight was a unification in Mexico which got ESPN fight of the year. Takayama v Rodriguez I think mental fight as well.

It menayothin has a unification I would watch though.

Some good wins (Condes, Juarez, Jerusalem), some decent B tier wins (Odaira, Novoa, Tomogdan, Diale -who fought Andrew Selby recently).

Like many Thai's boxing is his job, he gets paid to work so is better off fighting between title defenses, than being inactive. Guys like Pongsaklek Wonjongkam, Veeraphol Sahaprom and Saman Sorjaturong have done it whilst champion.

Problem is that they have a different boxing culture to us and we don't really recognise that. It's part of why using their "real" names is wrong, as it's ignoring the value of the local fighting culture.

gilgamesh wrote:

Lackeos wrote:This is a perfect example of why people need to place less emphasis on the amount of wins and losses are on a fighter's record. He is a fine fighter, of course, with lots of wins over top 15 opponents and 2 wins over then top 5 opponents. But nevertheless, you can't rate a 48-0 fighter like Menayothin over a 24-2-2 fighter like Erislandy Lara or a 9-1 fighter like Lomanchenko. Quantity of wins don't matter, quantity of losses don't matter; you have to look at the full context of whether the defeats were in-prime, how good the opposition was, how decisive the outcomes were, etc. If you beat 50 bums, that doesn't mean you're special. If you lose to the best fighter in the world, that doesn't mean you're not the second best fighter in the world. The raw quantity of wins and losses should not be given any weight.

The OP knows this. He's merely making fun of the fact that Mayweather supporters will harp about his 50-0 record as if that in and of itself is all it takes for him to be the best ever.

Mayweather still isn't one of the 10 best fighters ever, but he's an ATG, and the best boxer so far of the 21st century.

I'm not even bothered about the 0

I've brought up a few times over the years how Duran after beating Leonard was 72-1 and probably the best p4p fighter at that point. The only loss he had he avenged twice by KO.

Naandrew wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Lackeos wrote:This is a perfect example of why people need to place less emphasis on the amount of wins and losses are on a fighter's record. He is a fine fighter, of course, with lots of wins over top 15 opponents and 2 wins over then top 5 opponents. But nevertheless, you can't rate a 48-0 fighter like Menayothin over a 24-2-2 fighter like Erislandy Lara or a 9-1 fighter like Lomanchenko. Quantity of wins don't matter, quantity of losses don't matter; you have to look at the full context of whether the defeats were in-prime, how good the opposition was, how decisive the outcomes were, etc. If you beat 50 bums, that doesn't mean you're special. If you lose to the best fighter in the world, that doesn't mean you're not the second best fighter in the world. The raw quantity of wins and losses should not be given any weight.

The OP knows this. He's merely making fun of the fact that Mayweather supporters will harp about his 50-0 record as if that in and of itself is all it takes for him to be the best ever.

Mayweather still isn't one of the 10 best fighters ever, but he's an ATG, and the best boxer so far of the 21st century.

I'm not even bothered about the 0

I've brought up a few times over the years how Duran after beating Leonard was 72-1 and probably the best p4p fighter at that point. The only loss he had he avenged twice by KO.

Yep, and I consider Duran a greater all time fighter than Floyd personally though I could see some debating that. I'd personally rate Duran higher.