Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight?
I can't think of another fighter with so much to lose due to a single loss. Ali, Hagler, Holmes, Leonard, Robinson,.......Even if Floyd avenged his loss, it wouldn't make that much of a difference because his antagonists have already gotten there satisfaction and his legacy had already been tarnished.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
Yes but it also depends on how he loses and to whom.
Floyd's superstardom was built on his undefeated record and without that, he wouldn't have been the cashcow that he is today.
People aren't thrilled by his style and there is no way that he wouldve been this huge without that zero.
His squeaky clean record is his angle.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
What he has at risk is "potential" earnings. Who else in history has been in the same position?
Oscar? Tyson? Holyfield? Pacquiao?
Oscar just got old but lost his potential inside the ring.
Tyson arguably lost his potential both outside the ring and inside the ring.
Holyfield also got old and lost it inside the ring.
Pacquiao?
I'd say yes.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
Well yeah, in this day and age a single loss is seen as bummifying by comparison and it would hamper Floyd's marketability significantly more than any other fighter now or before because of his attitude problem and his stigma being based around his "0" or pll wanting to see it lost.
As for economically, it would barely make any difference whatsoever to Floyd, he is so rich anyway!
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
Yes, because people HATE Floyd and the second he loses, people will say "SEE, he was only undefeated all these years because he ducked everyone good, when he finally fought someone tough he lost!! SEE!!!"
To me, Floyd is one of the top 3 greatest of all time who ever got in the ring. People discredit him and say he ducked the hardest fights, which is nonsense.
But ok, assume that's true: Floyd always had one or two guys he avoided because he thought they could beat him.
Floyd has been a world champion since 1998, when he beat Genaro Hernandez. That's 16 years, 16 FUCKING YEARS, of fighting nothing but championship fights against other champions or top 10 ranked contenders, without a loss.
That kind of consistency over time is unheard of in any sport. Hopkins has had great longevity, but he's dropped numerous fights along the way.
To always come in in top shape, never underestimate a guy, and get shit done for 16 years against champions and top 10 opposition without so much as ONE slip up is, in itself, remarkable.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
Quote:
His squeaky clean record is his angle.
Yep, Americans with their obsessive focus on being #1, and nothing else matters except #1.
To the mainstream masses, yeah, a single loss would destroy the illusion he created, but the masses don't know he ducked every top prime guy for 8 years (Ricky Hatton excluded, Hatton was the sole top prime guy Floyd fought during those 8 years, and Floyd had help in there from ref joe cortez.)
His record is NOT squeaky clean, he should have 2 losses on it.
1. Every real Boxing fan KNOWS Castillo whupped him that time in 2002 and got robbed.
2. The real fans also know that in the Judah fight, there should have been an automatic DQ the instant Floyd's cornerman climbed into the ring during the rd and went after Judah. That was complete bull$#!t. Ref richard steele was about to take points from Judah for Judah's foul tactics, but crackhead roger's actions of storming the ring during the fight, that's an automatic DQ anyway you slice it! Steele broke the rules of Boxing there, and he was told by someone to keep that fight going after they cleared the ring of all the rioters.
A case could be made for a 3rd loss against Oscar De La Hoya instead of a split-decision. Crap-tastic fight because of Floyd's unwillingness to fight, but I think De La Hoya won that one on effective aggression. Not that it was very effective aggression, but Oscar was the only one doing a damn thing in there.
PLUS Floyd had all those losses as an amateur unlike Sugar Ray Robinson as an amateur.
It's why Floyd's a bronze medalist.
Real fans knows it's not a squeaky clean undefeated record at all, but the mainstream idiots don't their @$$hole from a hole-in-the-ground regarding Boxing.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bradlee180
A case could be made for a 3rd loss against Oscar De La Hoya instead of a split-decision. Crap-tastic fight because of Floyd's unwillingness to fight, but I think De La Hoya won that one on effective aggression. Not that it was very effective aggression, but Oscar was the only one doing a damn thing in there.
PLUS Floyd had all those losses as an amateur unlike Sugar Ray Robinson as an amateur.
It's why Floyd's a bronze medalist.
Real fans knows it's not a squeaky clean undefeated record at all, but the mainstream idiots don't their @$$hole from a hole-in-the-ground regarding Boxing.
The Castillo fight for sure could have went to Castillo, but Oscar? Really? Anyone who thinks Oscar won that fight doesn't know boxing and has no business scoring a fight.
And who really cares about what someone did as an amateur? And if you want to talk robberies, Floyd got robbed in the olympics.
I'd love to hear your list of who Floyd ducked and when Floyd ducked them.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
It is an automatic DQ, the rules were broken there in Mayweather's favor.
Not DQing Floyd in the 2006 Judah match didn't make much sense, Floyd wasn't the big Draw yet. If this World Champ wasn't drawing money, which he wasn't, then why were promoters willing to bend the rules for him like that?
The year before in 2005, Floyd had boxed Gatti, but Gatti was the real Draw there, even if he was past-his-prime.
A Champ since 1998, Floyd wasn't drawing much for like 7 years till he started boxing huge Draws like Gatti, Hatton, and De La Hoya.
Floyd wasn't a proven Draw on his own name till 2009 against Marquez.
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
You guys may have a point there, I don't know why he wasn't DQed. But to be fair, would anyone really have given Floyd crap about a DQ loss? No one really cares about Roy/Montell Griffin 1, because Roy lost by knocking out while he was on his knees then he knocked him out again in the rematch.
I'm still interested in know who exactly Floyd ducked for 16 years? And when?
Re: Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight
Boxing does not revolve around Floyd.
Tyson lost more financially.
Joe Louis would have lost more politically.
Black people lost more when Jack Johnson won.
