What do you think is the better tag to have? I mean an unbeaten fighter may have lost a fight ie Lewis, but have also got the best of every opponent they have faced or Mayweather type never lost full stop. In my opinion a fighter that has come back from a loss and beaten every fighterthey have ever faced is more impressive as it takes a lot to come back from a loss.
Just because you revenge all of your losses does not make you “unbeaten.”
Unbeaten and undefeated are synonyms.
unpossible. :headscratch:
thats what I was thinking!
anyway I think its better to have never lost rather than losing and avenging your loss
Definitely the Lennox Lewis type who have been beaten but was able to get vengeance from their defeat and redeem themselves, a fighter who cleaned his division and the best in his generation has to offer.
In my mind unbeaten could mean you may have lost a fight on points but you never got your face caved in. You were never “beat.”
Undefeated means you never lost a match even when it appeared an elephant had tap danced on your face.
Just a thought.
I pretty much think it depends on who those records are against. You used Lennon Lewis for example. He was a guy who fought and beat EVERYONE there was worth beating in the heavyweight division. It was for like 5 or 6 years he reigned supreme. It also enhanced his aura that he avenged his two losses.
Floyd has gone unbeaten but did he actually fight the best available at all times? Makes it a whole lot easier if the answer is no. And in my opinion the answer has been NO since he left the lightweight division.
In short it all depends on who is on those resumes.
I know ‘unbeaten’ is not the technical term for the status I am describing but that is not the point of the thread is it? what I mean by unbeaten is throughout your career although you may have lost no fighter has gotten the best of you.
I mean Lewis lost, but other the two fights who was the best? no one Lewis fought can say; I AM BETTER THAN LEWIS due to him beating them my point is I think there is to much emphasis on undefeated reords when it takes much more for someone like Paul Williams to come back from defeat and put on a performance like yesterdays.
Lennox took a beating from Klitchsko.
It is better to be undefeated than unbeaten.
Well as has been said, they mean the same thing to most surely… But for what it’s worth it all depends on the opposition faced and the nature of the fights… To be beaten once your better years are behind you, and then still be able to avenge the loss is a testament to greatness, perhaps moreso than never losing imo. Neither mean anything unless you take on the best though.
And Klitschko didn’t?
And Klitschko didn’t?[/QUOTE]
Yes. And Klitchsko was winning the fight.
This brings up a better queston-
Would you rather beat your opponent or defeat your opponent?
or better yet
Would you rather score a victory or score a win?
think about that. It will blow your mind
However sweet the revenge victory is, the fighter would have always prefered to have never lost in the first place, surely
yep - undefeated every time
If you are going to lose a fight then a controversial split decision is the way I would want it 
- DLH had a few of these. (or a DQ like Jones v Griffin). That way you can avenge it and cancel it out (especially with a KO win). I think thats the only way the fans would forget a SD loss.
If you get kayoed then you have been well and truly beaten - even if you avenge it.
Kltischko LOST the Lewis fight by the way
unpossible. :headscratch:[/quote]
Made me laugh dude!