Does a perfect record exist in boxing?

Almost every discussion on a boxer - whether a champion, novice or ATG always raises questions about the quality of their opposition.

Calzaghe record as been questioned...roy jones is criticised for who he faced before his more recent downfall...marcianos opposition...many more. Even recently we had SRR's record being discussed as it was considered he potentially missed out fighting a few contenders! There are so many more in almost every discussion on here.

Which boxers can't be critised for thier records potentially missing names? And more importnantly, which current or ex world champs fought the best possible and are considered not to have any gaps?

Or simply, is the boxer community way to harsh on the records of boxers? We accept there are politics in the sport, there are multiple belts, there is money to be made...so why is it a surprise when boxers miss the odd challenge?

Discuss...

Sprtsman think the one that is pretty much beyond reproach is Harry Greb, nigh on 300 fights and pretty much everyone across middle and light heavy in his day. Add into that the fact he holds winning records against most and think you have a pretty good argument to put him beyond much criticism.

Rocky Marciano, Salvador Sanchez and Gene Tunney come close.

rowley wrote:Sprtsman think the one that is pretty much beyond reproach is Harry Greb, nigh on 300 fights and pretty much everyone across middle and light heavy in his day. Add into that the fact he holds winning records against most and think you have a pretty good argument to put him beyond much criticism.

True that. Hero.

I don't think there's any record which could be absolutely, one hundred percent and without and question considered perfect. But that said, some men have come damn close. Realistically, what more could any expect from, say, Henry Armstrong? To me, nobody ever achieved more than him, but if you ask enough people some will eventually say, "Well, why didn't he fight Wes Ramey?", or "how did he manage to lose twice to Zivic in title fights?"

It's the nature of the beast, I think. I think there is a tendancy to be a little too harsh on fighters now and again, to be honest - and I think the proliferation of belts has played a part in that. Perhaps gives an illusion that certain fighters are shamefully ducking certain others (who often have a puzzling 'mandatory' status), and leads us to revise history and apply the same theory to some old-timers.

The obvious one would be Ali as do not think his record can be questioned in terms of the quality he faced in a golden era for the division.

yeah i'll have a read over grebes record later.

i'm not taking into account that a boxer loses a fight, but whether they fought the best or not. in reality, i'd argue that any with a '0' still intact has automatically not fought the best out there. when styles make fights and a fighter normally has over 40 fights, there should be a time when someone gets the better of you...

I agree with jeff and would pick Greb, whom I've always believed to have boasted the best record in pro boxing.

Ezzard Charles would probably be the next I'd think about.

As a more Modern one De la Hoya fought a great level of competition consistently, didn't always win however. Off the top of my head I think Winky Wright is the only guy who he missed but should have fought.

ermietrude wrote:The obvious one would be Ali as do not think his record can be questioned in terms of the quality he faced in a golden era for the division.

Nah - Ali's can be questioned. Why didn't he rematch Foreman on home soil and fought lesser men instead - being one of many questions levelled at "the greatest" through the cold cruel lens of revisionist history.

Its not a bad question, either.

Because Foreman disappeared and took part in silly exhibition bouts.

In all fairness, oxy, Ali had knocked Foreman out.

Foreman didn't rematch Frazier immediately, either, and nor did Frazier rematch Ali straight after the first fight.

Foreman v Young was an eliminator to fight Ali so, had Foreman prevailed, the rematch would have happened.

HumanWindmill wrote:I agree with jeff and would pick Greb, whom I've always believed to have boasted the best record in pro boxing.

Ezzard Charles would probably be the next I'd think about.

Expect better from you Windy, everyone knows he ducked the third fight with Burley.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I agree with jeff and would pick Greb, whom I've always believed to have boasted the best record in pro boxing.

Ezzard Charles would probably be the next I'd think about.

Expect better from you Windy, everyone knows he ducked the third fight with Burley.

Oops!

Book only arrived yesterday, jeff. That's my excuse, and I'll be damned if I don't stick to it.

Not a problem Windy, hope it will not be long before you take responsbility for boring everyone senseless with Burley articles.

You can count on it, mate.

rowley wrote:Not a problem Windy, hope it will not be long before you take responsbility for boring everyone senseless with Burley articles.

When did Ezzy duck a 3rd fight with Burley - which book am I missing? Its not in Otty's (or I missed it if it was). Can't believe it anyway - he'd whipped Burley twice and I can't see anything would change in the 3rd bout.

Was joking Oxy, much as it pains me to admit it Ezzard beat Charley fair and square both times.

rowley wrote:Was joking Oxy, much as it pains me to admit it Ezzard beat Charley fair and square both times.

Likewise. Although, to be fair - Burley had no business playing with MWs like Ezzy anyway. If he'd have had his shot at WW as he so richly deserved...