Does Floyd have more to lose than any other figher in history if he loses a fight?

[DannyV297]

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.

His entire image is built on invincibility so yes.

[FinitoElDinamita]

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.

[bradlee180]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[fan johnny]

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.