Why Does the Zero Matter on a Boxer’s Fight Record?
The Zero on a fighter’s record or lack of one seems to have taken on a new role within the boxing world. Many times, as I read the posts on boxing pages and the comments that follow, I come across numerous posts stating the importance of being undefeated and the case that owning a zero is an automatic claim to greatness. A prime example of this is what I call the Floyd Mayweather, JR. effect, this is where any argument regarding boxing can be settled with “Floyd said” or “Floyd did” this is then followed by “49-0 NUFF SAID”, as if having a 0 is the only thing that matters in the pugilistic world.
I am in admiration of any fighter who can retain an unbeaten record over an entire or large part of a career. However, I do not think the zero is as important as some in the claim to boxing greatness, Floyd Mayweather, JR. is a boxing great, a defensive master and elusive tactician who has stayed on top in an era of top talent. Does the lack of losses have any impact on how I view Floyd the fighter? In short no, not in the slightest. Other names that carry the title of undefeated are Joe Calzaghe 46-0, 32 KO’s and the legendary Rocky Marciano 49-0. 43 KO’s, I have no problem with any of these fighters being praised for their in-ring accomplishments but would a loss have really effected their legacy, and if it did would the effect be a negative one?
Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Robinson, Pacquiao, Greb, Pep, Lewis, Holyfield and many more all suffered losses throughout their careers. Could any one of us honestly say that the names carrying a loss are less worthy of praise and adulation than those who retain the zero? Of course not. All the fighters win or lose are admired because of what they achieved in the ring. How many times have we as fans wondered how a boxer will return from defeat, will they rise above the doubters, the fear and once again claim glory? These stories are in many ways at the very heart of our sport, two gladiators in the ring leaving it all between the ropes, facing an enemy head on and walking away with glory. Only one ever leaves with the sound of victory in their ears, the other leaves with a feeling of failure and questions in their hearts and mind as to what more they could have done.
Sometimes a loss changes a fighter, Prince Naseem Hamed was seen by many to be destined for greatness. He carried the skills and showmanship to shine within the sport, yet after his loss to Marco Antonio Barerra he could not find it within himself to climb back to the top, Barerra not only took Hamed’s zero he also took his heart. As much as we can all admire the skills of Naz he is always just on the outskirts of greatness as it is the loss that defines him.
George Foreman on the other hand took the loss to Ali so badly he practically exiled himself like Yoda in Star Wars, vanished from the boxing world not long after his loss and has openly admitted his mind could not deal with the defeat for many years. Then after a hiatus unheard of he returned to not only show the world he had something left in the tank but also to himself he could climb the mountain and achieve greatness. George as we all know did achieve greatness by lifting a piece of the heavyweight title again.
These tales are modern fairy tales, our knights simply wear gloves and shorts instead of armour and shield. The greats rise above the odds and skill, heart and determination drive them on against mental and physical opposition. If we look at Calzaghe, Marciano and Mayweather, jR. and ask ourselves would a loss change their standing could we honestly say it would? I think the answer is no. Floyd would still be a defensive master, Calzaghe would still be a slick tactical adapter and Marciano would without doubt be the diamond in the rough who stood out amongst his peers with rugged tenacity. If you can agree that the lack of a zero would not change how these fighters would be seen, then surely you must accept that a zero does not make a fighter great.
Calzaghe for one is not on my G.O.A.T list yet his record is outstanding. If you are of the persuasion that the zero is a huge factor in a fighter’s legacy, then look back at the list of names earlier in this article and examine the history that defined them. Legacy is much more than the numbers on a record, nostalgic admiration is not based on a zero it is built on achievements and obstacles. From modern era Floyd to the bygone era of Greb the numbers on the card are not what defines them. Legacy is not defined by victory legacy is defined by the man, win or lose.
[si-contact-form form=’2′]