My pet peave is how fans and especially announcers throw fighters under the bus when they lose a fight. There's a zero defect mentality that is insane. Somehow a guy makes more money if he has a spotless record regardless of the quality of the fights he puts on.

Some people say that PBF deserves 8 figure purses because of his record. I say that's garbage. Guys like Marquez and Vasquez that leave it all in the ring deserve big purses for good shows. I think it's about the attempt to beat another man, not just outscore him. So for me it's an entertaining fight that deserves the hoopla, not an unblemished fighter.

The reality is if fighters were fighting top notch competition often enough there wouldn't be any undefeated fighters. Even PBF. It's like the difference between a football season and a basketball season. No team will ever go undefeated in the NBA, it's just not possible because they compete too often. Boxing should be the same and all the true greats shouldn't be guided to the impressive record, just constant challenging fights. SRR wasn't undefeated, neither was Ali. If a fighter goes undefeated through the whole career it's more likely they were matched well than they are that superior in skill or ability. But fighters don't want to risk that because it makes them less marketable. I read an interview where a t.v. exec said that PBF is at the risk of losing his big paydays by losing a fight? Whoever made that rule is on crack. It doesn't make for better fights, it makes for safer fights. Kobe Bryant doesn't take a pay cut if the team loses. His salary is based upon his performance, he can perform well and still lose a game. So can fighters. Baby Bull performed well but lost the fight. Doesn't make him a lesser fighter. Shane Mosley performed well but lost to Cotto, Shane's stock shouldn't go down.

Just my 2 cents.