Loss Early help a young fighter?

[Hunter]

If Khan didnt lose to prescott would he be fighting all of these top fighters and would he have called out Bradley at this point in his career or would he have been moved more slowly? I think the loss will help him get to the top of the chain faster.

I think Mayweather could have gone down as the greatest of all time had he not gotten the decision against castillo. Maybe he would have thrown caution to the wind and fought, Hatton at 140, Cotto, Margarito, Paul Williams, and Pacquaio when they were at the top and deemed unbeatable. i think Floyd in his prime beats them all. I am not a floyd fan just saying how i see it. Fighters that try and protect the zero sometimes give up the best years of their career.

[Pugilistic]

i think it just depends on the fighter.

Some fighters learn alot from a loss early.

It appeared to help guys like Hopkins, Marquez, Khan, etc.

Other young fighters lose motivation and focus and basically never get back to a good level like Jaidon Codrington, Jeff Lacy,etc.

[marbleheadmaui]

i think it just depends on the fighter.

Some fighters learn alot from a loss early.

It appeared to help guys like Hopkins, Marquez, Khan, etc.

Other young fighters lose motivation and focus and basically never get back to a good level like Jaidon Codrington, Jeff Lacy,etc.

Yeah I agree with this. Many great fighters lost early, Armstrong, Arguello, Monzon etc and many great fighters began with notable unbeaten runs, Robinson, Chavez and Holmes.

Fighters can only be great by being daring matchmakers. THAT is the key.

[Fenster]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

[marbleheadmaui]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

I'd speculate on the bold slightly differently. I'll bet more often than not that loss represents a ceiling that the fighter never exceeeds but it doesn't lead to a "decline" in and of itself.

Having said that of course I'd also be that if I went through Bert Sugar's top 100 fighters of all time, 75 or more lost early.

[Fenster]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

I'd speculate on the bold slightly differently. I'll bet more often than not that loss represents a ceiling that the fighter never exceeeds but it doesn't lead to a "decline" in and of itself.

Having said that of course I'd also be that if I went through Bert Sugar's top 100 fighters of all time, 75 or more lost early.

Yes.. stalling at a "level" is probably more accurate.

Virtually all losses lead to fighters being dropped in rankings, marketability etc. To progress from the stalling point is out of the norm.

[marbleheadmaui]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

I'd speculate on the bold slightly differently. I'll bet more often than not that loss represents a ceiling that the fighter never exceeeds but it doesn't lead to a "decline" in and of itself.

Having said that of course I'd also be that if I went through Bert Sugar's top 100 fighters of all time, 75 or more lost early.

Yes.. stalling at a "level" is probably more accurate.

Virtually all losses lead to fighters being dropped in rankings, marketability etc. To progress from the stalling point is out of the norm.

THAT is a recent (last 15 years or so) phenomenon in the sport and a major problem in my view. Too many of us fans are record-driven rather than fighter development driven. In some ways the Argentines may have a more productive approach to young fighters. If two young guys are in a competitive fight? often it will be called a draw so as not to discourage young fighters from taking competitive fights and to develop them as fighters, not merely as boxing records. In the sport's heyday trainers built fighters. Now too often they just build records.

I mean as great a fighter as Pipino Cuevas or Dick Tiger might never have been able to even stay in the game today given their early records. It's a problem.

[Spicoli]

I'd say much has to do with the fashion of the loss really . Ko vs close decision or such. You are literally stripped to the core as a person and a fighter when you get peeled off the canvas and have to 'own' it 100%. In Floyds case debate may have raged, judges, interpretations, style preference etc . It may not convince a guy he is human but merely a victim of a bad call and he did just ine.

[boxingbantz]

Getting blasted out of there in a single round by Breidis Prescott is the best thing that ever happened to Amir Khan. That and hooking up with Freddie Roach. Take either of these factors away and I am convinced Amir wouldn't be at the level he is at today.

[generalbulldog]

Depends on who the young fighter is. Armstrong, Arguello, Leonard, Hopkins, Pacquiao, Louis, Hagler and many more did benefit from it and went on to do great things in the ring.

[Master]

The posters ask about young fighters losing early, so that means by its very definition not include older fighters losing in the middle of their career like Lennox Lewis who benefited from his loss to McCall and teaming up with Manny Stewart. It depends on how they have taken the loss and how well they have improved, Khan being a good example. Changed trainers and gone on to bigger and better things as did Nigel Benn. Will the same apply to Degale, we will see but a large part of it is how well they are managed and moved along too.

[IamInuit]

In past eras losing was a badge of honour and not the mark of a witch like it is today.
Prospects and wanna be prospects are coddled and breast fed to these double digit and 0 resumes that simply do not represent quality but quantity. It’s not the fighters fault though but the importance of this hallowed 0. Facing adversity early rather then later with a padded record imo is a much better course. That way you do not get fighters quitting on the stool the minute times get a little ruff.

Benny Leonard was ko’d in his first fight. He did ok.
Armstrong also and he had a pretty good career.
Arguello was ko’d in his fourth fight.
Ted Lewis lost his first
Billy Conn lost his first
Manuel Ortiz ditto
Manny got ko’d in his 12th and then again in his 28th fight.

Total different mind set in boxing culture today. It’s a risk and reward culture but its ass backwards. Instead of taking the risk in order to reap the rewards, they go for the rewards rather then take the risk. Its not legacy driven at all save a couple of fighters. That’s why we do not see unifications let alone undisputed champions. Contenders that appear dangerous are side stepped. Jo Jo dan is an example of this. After getting robbed in Turkey, he is now to be avoided at all costs. Its not him settling for mediocrity but rather mediocrity being thrust upon him.

[marbleheadmaui]

In past eras losing was a badge of honour and not the mark of a witch like it is today.
Prospects and wanna be prospects are coddled and breast fed to these double digit and 0 resumes that simply do not represent quality but quantity. It’s not the fighters fault though but the importance of this hallowed 0. Facing adversity early rather then later with a padded record imo is a much better course. That way you do not get fighters quitting on the stool the minute times get a little ruff.

Benny Leonard was ko’d in his first fight. He did ok.
Armstrong also and he had a pretty good career.
Arguello was ko’d in his fourth fight.
Ted Lewis lost his first
Billy Conn lost his first
Manuel Ortiz ditto
Manny got ko’d in his 12th and then again in his 28th fight.

Total different mind set in boxing culture today. It’s a risk and reward culture but its ass backwards. Instead of taking the risk in order to reap the rewards, they go for the rewards rather then take the risk. Its not legacy driven at all save a couple of fighters. That’s why we do not see unifications let alone undisputed champions. Contenders that appear dangerous are side stepped. Jo Jo dan is an example of this. After getting robbed in Turkey, he is now to be avoided at all costs. Its not him settling for mediocrity but rather mediocrity being thrust upon him.

Completely agree. We as fans are damaging the sport by buying into promoters and trainers building records. What we SHOULD want is them building topnotch fighters.

[THE THIRD MAN]

Hopkins lost his first fight, Monzon and Hagler lost early and Hopkins getting a draw with Mercado after two early knockdowns might have been the catalyst to his determination to win the title and defend it 20 times. It's how you come back from defeat that makes you a real champion IMO, Louis did it after Schmeling, Robinson must have been in shock after winning his first 40 fights relatively easily then losing to La Motta, he wouldn't lose again for 8 years and another 90 fights. If you can suck up the defeat and work out what went wrong and make those improvements both physically and mentally then you can come back better than ever. Many great champions have shock losses early or just were not at their best on the night, Jose Napoles lost his 13th and 16th pro fight 6 years before becoming champion, Bob Foster lost to Doug Jones in 8 rounds 6 years before becoming champion (he only really lost to Heavyweights)! Then you have, Alexis Arguello (Fernandez) and Salvador Sanchez (Becerra) who both lost fights unexpectedly. Roberto Duran famously was well beaten by Esteban De Jesus shortly after winning the title at MSG in 1972, it hurt Duran so much he never lost at Lightweight again and wouldn't lose another fight for 8 years. In recent years many champions appear to make a habit of losing after suffering their first loss, Mosley, DLH, Jones Jr (i won't count the DQ), some like Prince Naseem Hamed just turn back into a toad after losing.