Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
When an ‘O’ On A Fighters Record Means Just That...Absolutely Nothing
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=6548&more=1
07.04.06 - By Lee Hayes: It’s really the curse of modern pugilism. It can be significant, but just as many times it can mean absolutely nothing. It’s that ‘O’ in the loss column on a fighters record, and nothing is more misleading in boxing. Some would blame it’s origins on all-time great heavyweight champion slugger Rocky Marciano, and his uncanny 49-0 (43) professional boxing record. But it’s a little more complicated than that. Undefeated fighters have always attracted a lot of fans and supporters. It’s only logical, because nobody wants their favorite fighter to get too comfortable with the idea of losing, nor do they as fans want to get accustomed to the feeling of disappointment one can’t help but feeling after watching a favorite lad getting shell shocked in between the ropes. But lets really examine the significance of an undefeated record and put the whole myth in to perspective.
My first introduction to the intoxication of the mythical “unbeatable” boxer was reading about the legendary John L. Sullivan when I was around eight or nine years old. My grandfather had given me his fairly extensive life time collection of boxing memoriballia, and I started right at the beginning with Greco ties to early combat sports and in to the historical record of the life of James Figg. But, it wasn’t until I hit 1878-1880 that I found a single fighter that enthralled my young imagination.
I remember getting goose bumps reading Sullivan’s boisterous claims that he could “Lick any son of a bitch in the house”, and how legend says his own introduction to “prize fighting” was as an audience member at the old circus type “events” where an experienced brute would challenge his audience to try last three minutes with him for a relatively handsome pay day. Very few ever did. Sullivan was never the type to fit in to societies molds however, and according to folklore, he commenced knocking unconscious the braggadocious bare knuckle challenger on his first try.
There was something very exciting and addicting reading about a man so powerful and physically superior that he could literally challenge the world, and back it up. I’ll also be the first to admit that I put a lot of credence in the fact that Sullivan had no losses on his record through 1877 (as an amateur) until 1892, when Sullivan lost his infamous challenge by younger, skilled technician Jim J. Corbett. Most records show “The Boston Strong Boy’s” record during that time period as being 35-0-2 (30), but historians know that the majority of fights took place as “exhibitions” during Sullivan’s time, because it was illegal in many states to host professional fighting. The actual span of John L.’s pro fights plus exhibitions without a loss was approximatly 120-0-2.
Well, there’s nothing wrong with being undefeated if you’re facing top challengers and fighting often. Sullivan did both of those things, and I think his undefeated record is still impressive to this day.
Many fighters would go undefeated for long streaks for decades after Sullivan, but the next champion that really captivated minds was Rocky Marciano. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, Marciano is often sited as the culprit for the facade undefeated records represent today. Part of the reason I myself lay a good part of the blame on Rocky is that he, like many modern undefeated fighters, had a pretty paved path on his way to the heavyweight championship of the world. Many of his opponents were absolute no-hopers, but the truth is that Marciano’s amateur experience was so limited and he required so much technical work, his early pro fights were his introduction to the sport, and not just a promoters illusion to cash in on the Italian American slugger.
By the time Marciano had beaten an old Joe Louis, he was already good enough to challenge anybody in the world, and he did his best to do exactly that. Maybe Marciano is the reason we find ourselves as we do today, but that’s only because he set the bar so high. Now it’s practically unheard of for a fighter to retire undefeated. Personally I believe that Rocky earned his reputation as “unbeatable”, at least during his generation and I give him a lot of respect. Raising the bar by remaining undefeated, but still fighting the top opponents available is no shame. Which leads me to modern pugilism.
What went wrong and why?
It used to be that a boxer had to earn his title shot by fighting all of the best boxers around. Not only in his weight class, but often in the weight class above and below. Fighters would often box forty to fifty fights a year, with a little more than half as exhibitions. So it’s only logical that they would eventually tire out, have an off night, meet a style they had difficulty defeating, or just plain lose to the law of averages. There was never any unnecessary pressure for a fighter to go without a loss his entire career. In fact, the idea that it was necessary almost undoubtably would have been laughed silly by old timers.
It was considered part of the trade to experience a loss and come back. It was a show of heart and a show of a master boxer to lose then gain redemption. When you fought twenty times a year, a single loss really seemed insignificant. That’s part of the change. The new trend is for fighters to often slow down to two or three fights a year even when they are still far away from a title shot. Being undefeated was never so important or emphasized as it has been in the last two decades, and it’s not getting any better. All it takes is one single loss for a fighter to be completely written off. Ask Prince Naseem Hamed or Jeff Lacy.
How did this happen?
It’s as if we had forgotten the lesson of ‘Smokin’ Joe Fraizer vs Muhammad Ali in their first fight. Two undefeated amazing boxers in their primes facing off to see who was best. Boxing as it should be. There was no way it could end in a draw. Someone’s ‘O’ had to go. Both men wanted to prove who was the best in the world and it was that exact attitude that made it inconsequential as to who ended up with a loss on their dossiere. Boxing fans won that night, and neither Joe or Muhammad left the ring as losers. This is the model we should hold, only it shouldn’t have to start at the championship level. There are examples of times when young undefeated fighters faced off before winning major titles, putting it all on the line. But it’s rare.
Promoters and managers have convinced themselves that a loss is the be all end all of a career and more importantly a cash cow, so more and more they are too chicken to take risks. It’s understandable when you examine examples like the two I pointed out in Hamed and Lacy as well has hundreds of others. In a way, they are right. That loss can tarnish a fighters image. New boxing fans are immediately drawn to a 40-0 record, because it leads them to believe that they immediately understand who the most dangerous man on the planet is.
They have no idea about the Catch 22 that this has created, or how it destroys our sport. It makes sense, you see a guy with forty wins and no losses, you assume he’s fought many guys and styles and he’s been superior to them all. They couldn’t possibly know what sits behind a shinny record like the 29-0 Zeljko Mavrovic had when he “challenged” then heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis for his title in 1998, or what kind of quality of opposition several of the undefeated opponents Manny Pacquaio beat the tar out of early in his career.
The problem seems to go much further than that, because the boxing media, -be it major magazines, internet website or television programs- which is more to blame for what has happened than Marciano or any other single factor. All you have to do is pick up a recent copy of Ring Magazine, or search the web for comments on the Joe Calzaghe Jeff Lacy fight to get a good idea of just what is going on here. For nearly twenty years I’ve read experts slam fighter after fighter for simply losing on one night. One night in their entire careers. Roy Jones Jr. went from being considered amongst the greatest Light Heavyweights of all-time to suddenly becoming the punch line to many jokes.
Everybody here knows that should Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. lose a single fight before winning a championship, he’ll be written off faster than his fans can cheer “Viva Mexico!”. It’s not right. The media are always the quickest to jump the gun. They spread the message...you’ve all heard it, “it turns out that Prince Naseem Hamed is one dimensional”. Case closed? I guess, unless you consider that he was considered anything but before he got a boxing lesson from all time great Marco Antonio Barrera on that one night. Who here has not had a really off day at work or during a sports competition where they just blew it and had nothing?
Who is flawless their entire careers? Can you imagine if all sports were held to the same high standards that boxers are? And that’s only half the problem with the media outlets and their message. We are just as likely to be fed lies about an undefeated fighter, because some major network or magazine is propping him up to increase sales. Don’t believe me? Check and see which major magazines had Gerrie Coetzee, Darrin Van Horn and Michael Olajide on their covers, trying to pass them off as undefeated future greats. All of them to be nearly completely forgotten after their first loss. You would think that Nicolay Valuev was as great as Muhammad Ali with his misleading 43-0(31) record.
He’s being plastered all over boxing media outlets and the fact is, the only truly decent fighter on that list of 43 was John Ruiz, a fighter we all believed was below average in skills, yet he totally out boxed and outclassed Valuev for nearly the entire fight. 43-0 means absolutely nothing. Frankly I’m sick of hearing Larry Merchant and Jim Lampley continually claim every undefeated fighter is only one loss away from being the “next big bust”. Especially considering that they themselves have helped over exaggerate the prowess of the boxer through their networks own hyped promotions. I can’t be the only one.
How do we stop the trend?
Well, we are the ones really in control. It’s our money and support, as fans, that pay all of the cheques, whether it’s an employee of Ring Magazine, or an HBO broadcast, or just being a member of a boxing website like East Side Boxing. There’s a reason why we the fans still flock to see Arturo Gatti fights, or always make sure we catch Emanuel Augustus every time we catch his name on ESPN’s Friday Night Fights. It’s the same reason we don’t care that Diego Corrales, Marco Antonio Barrera or Jose Luis Castillo have more than one loss on all of their records. We watch them because they excite us, and because we believe they are a superior product. Would anybody trade watching an Arturo Gatti 40-7 (31) bout for his last opponent Thomas Damgaard’s (who was 37-0 going in to their recent match) next fight?
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m somehow against fighters going undefeated. Hell no! I’ll be fine if either Floyd Mayweather Jr. or Ricky Hatton lasts their entire careers undefeated, as long as they face several challenges along the way, and as long as they face the best opposition they can in the mean time. It equally would not bother me if they fought and one of them lost. It would be asinine to dismiss either talented men just because they lost facing the other top opponent in their weight class. Boxing fans need to stop this mentality, and quit putting so much pressure on a single fight. Anybody can get caught and knocked out, and anybody can have an off night and lose to an opponent they might beat in nine straight fights in a best out of ten series.
What I like to see personally is a fighter show what he’s made of. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s a war where the man has to prove he can fight with heart when his skills have abandoned him or if it’s pure determination that wins him a fight, like Marciano in his incredible come from behind 13th round knock out of “Jersey” Joe Walcott. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s the gutsy performance that Jose Luis Castillo put up against the super talented “Pretty Boy” Floyd Mayweather. As long as they face obstacles and prove they can surpass them against top opposition, I’m satisfied, win or lose. If they gave it their all and left everything on the line, how can I be dismissive? Would any of us want someone treating us the same way with our lives or careers? It seems absurd, outside of the world of boxing that is.
Conclusion: I hope all of you give this some thought, and don’t abandon the Jeff Lacy’s, the Erik Morales’s, Kassim Ouma’s or the Lamon Brewsters of the fistic world. They deserve more consideration and you’ll be the ones missing out if you dump them so quickly...because you couldn’t have been that dedicated of a fan or that serious of a boxing enthusiast to just toss away the men that risk their lives for your enjoyment and entertainment like that. It’s just not right.
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks