By A.Davies: Rocky Marciano, Michael Loewe, Pichit Sitbangprachan, Harry Simon, Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe.
Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Julio Cesar Chavez Snr and Manny Pacquiao.
Out of those two lists, which one would most boxing fans agree had had the most successful careers? Theoretically the first list could be described as the most successful, as those six fighters all retired with undefeated records. However, I think for most the second list holds the names of some of the greatest and most legendary fighters of all time, and would be regarded as having some of the most successful careers in boxing. Yet all the boxers in the second list tasted defeat at least once in their careers. The point that I’m trying to address is that a fighters career should not be defined by the fact that he never lost, but by the opponents he faced.
Muhammad Ali would not be described as ‘The Greatest’ if he didn’t have an opponent like Joe Frazier. Likewise Sugar Ray Robinson had Jake LaMotta. Sugar Ray Leonard had Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler and Tommy Hearns. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good a boxer is, he can only become great if he fights, and defeats, opponents that are also great. And when you fight a great opponent, there is a higher risk of being defeated.
This is a problem that both Klitschko brothers have faced in recent years. The lack of talent in the Heavyweight division over the past decade has led to the brothers becoming unappreciated, as they have not had a ‘Joe Frazier’ type opponent to ensure their legacy.
It seems that in this era boxing is becoming obsessed with a fighter remaining undefeated rather than him testing himself against the best opponents in the division. I understand that boxing is a business and an undefeated fighter may be more ‘sellable’ than one with a loss on his record, but this often leads to fights that should be happening not because one or both sides is afraid to lose.
Some current fighters that seem to have so much potential yet are having their unbeaten records protected include Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez, Adrien Broner and Kell Brook. Alvarez seems to be a star in the making yet after 42 fights and a Light Middleweight World Championship has only fought blown up Welterweights. Broner is being touted as the next Floyd Mayweather but is yet to defeat a household name. And Kell Brook is 28-0 yet recently turned down the chance to fight WBO Welterweight Champion Tim Bradley. Even if Kell had lost to Bradley, if he had performed well it would not have severely damaged his career, as he would have shared the ring with a household name, gained valuable experience and got good exposure to an American audience.
How many years has the boxing world been waiting for the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight to happen? Is Floyd trying to protect his perfect record until he retires? Who knows, but would a loss to Manny Pacquiao severely damage Floyd’s record? Maybe for a few years, but in fifty years’ time when you look back on Floyd’s career you will see that he only lost once, and only to a great fighter like Pacquiao. And if Floyd were to win, which I believe he would, his legacy would be strengthened no end by having a win against Pacquiao on his record. This is a fight that boxing needs.
To end, the fact that a fighter is unbeaten should not be the be all and end all. We need to focus on the best fighters fighting each other, testing themselves, and not being afraid to lose an unbeaten record. All the boxing greats were defeated by other great fighters, yet the fact that they fought the best is one of the key reasons why they are remembered so fondly, for having the guts to prove themselves against the best. The reputation of boxing depends of the best fighters fighting each other, and it is simply not happening enough.
Comments are closed.