The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[Fenster]

Are you saying Mayweather and Lopez are not all-time greats? They needed a loss to attain this status? Or they simply don't belong amongst the "greats?"

I think that opinion will be in the minority.

You can't compare boxing with ANY other sport. A loss in boxing is not the end but numerous losses most certainly is. Tiger Woods or Roger Federer could go years without winning but one great week and all is forgoten.

A fighter can only take so many losses before he becomes no longer relevant. Which means he doesn't even get a future chance of glory. Not only is his health at risk but his monetary value drops considerably. The "0" can be a great selling point - hence Mayweather-Hatton being billed as Undefeated.

[Kev]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

[Fenster]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

Good point. If Tiger Woods NEVER lost a game millions would believe he was Jesus 2. Or an alien or something.

Boxers only have a tiny amount of opportunity compared with other sports. You can play literally thousands of golf comps or tennis comps throughout a career comapred with only 50-100 fights. An undeafeated fighter, that has fought at the highest possible level around his weight-class, clearly is SPECIAL.

[erics44]

50 fights is a lot nowadays

[Kev]

Good point. If Tiger Woods NEVER lost a game millions would believe he was Jesus 2. Or an alien or something.


He would have had even more women queing up to fuck him

[Kev]

Reflecting on this a bit more, I actually think being unbeaten has an almost mystical quality to it.

Everybody loses, and hence is human, but someone who hasn't is still to an extent limitless and mythical.

Floyd has never been beat, and even though in our heads we all know everyone is beatable even his greatest critics on here subconsciously buy into his immortality as nobody ever picks any guy he's fighting to beat him.

Even Manny most favour to fall short against the mighty Floyd. Were he to have a loss that opinion would instantly change. Mosley is a joke opponent not worthy of even fighting Manny for example.

In sport people do still idolize and have hero's. Floyd's perfect record gives him a reputation that no other current fighter in the sport has. He would lose that reputation as soon as he lost a fight, and never regain it, as we would have seen his limits.

[greynotsoold]

Yes, a guy that has been fighting a long time against good opposition and is still undefeated has special merit. But it kind of gets tired when every single up and coming prospect is 24-0, so if he doesn't have at least 18-20 kos he is considered some how limited. Or if he has 3 or 4 or 5 early losses, that's it, despite the number of great fighters that weren't so good early on. (Monzon, Benny Leonard, Armstrong). It encourages young fighters to seek easy blow-out wins rather than quality outings that build better fighters.

[marbleheadmaui]

Reflecting on this a bit more, I actually think being unbeaten has an almost mystical quality to it.

Everybody loses, and hence is human, but someone who hasn't is still to an extent limitless and mythical.

Floyd has never been beat, and even though in our heads we all know everyone is beatable even his greatest critics on here subconsciously buy into his immortality as nobody ever picks any guy he's fighting to beat him.

Even Manny most favour to fall short against the mighty Floyd. Were he to have a loss that opinion would instantly change. Mosley is a joke opponent not worthy of even fighting Manny for example.

In sport people do still idolize and have hero's. Floyd's perfect record gives him a reputation that no other current fighter in the sport has. He would lose that reputation as soon as he lost a fight, and never regain it, as we would have seen his limits.

It is only mystical if one3 has fought the best possible set of opponents. Otherwise? You get Joe Calzaghe and Swen Ottke. Two "undefeated" fighters in the same division from the same continent. And I'm supposed to think it carries weight? Nah.

[marbleheadmaui]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

The inability to distinguish between what Marciano did (so completely wreck the heavies that it took 18 months after he retired to find a new champ the public would accept) and what Mayweather has done (not face anywhere NEAR the moist challenging set of opponents) is puzzling to say the least.

Thanks for the welcome!

[Kev]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen. Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

The inability to distinguish between what Marciano did (so completely wreck the heavies that it took 18 months after he retired to find a new champ the public would accept) and what Mayweather has done (not face anywhere NEAR the moist challenging set of opponents) is puzzling to say the least.

Thanks for the welcome!

Actually again I would disagree. I think Floyd's competition has been better than Marciano's. Marciano was a great fighter no doubt, but he didn't fight in a great era.

Either way, had Marciano lost he would not be regarded the same way as he is now. Still a great but his name is largely associated with his unbeaten record and when referenced it's usually in relation to that.

How much more famous is Rocky Marciano to the average sports fan than say Pernell Whittaker? Even non boxing fans know who Marciano is. Whittaker, despite being the better fighter p4p in the eyes of most knowledgable sports fans is not as big a name.

Had Marciano lost he wouldn't be any more famous than Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson. As he didn't I would suggest he is much the better known.

[JonnyFolds]

Well first welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

I have to say I disagree almost totally with you though

Yes Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods etc have all lost, but had they not are you saying they would be less regarded? Surely they would regarded as almost immortal.

Other sports: tennis, swimming, golf... These guys are constantly pitted against and thrust into the world level of opposition. On top of that, they can play day after day. In boxing I like that you only get 3-4 months to show up in the best form you possibly can for one night.
Any given day Federer will play Nadal; Woods/Mickelson; Kobe/L James

If you are saying that everybody is human, therefore everybody loses, then anyone who has bucked that trend surely stands out? You argument to me leads to the very opposite conclusion to which you point.

Floyd and Marciano stand out precisely because they never lost their unbeaten records. It might have made no difference to their quality as fighters had Castillo got the nod in the first fight with Floyd, or Marciano has lost to La Stanza but it would have meant they were no longer seperated from the rest.

I think Floyd would have the same draw with his one loss in the past. The difference would be that the Castillo would have had another 12 rounds to try and upend Mayweather. That would have been more interesting than anything he has done >140.

To complete a career and never lose is a virtually unheard of achievment. So precisely because of it's rarity it must be a big deal.

Everybody dies too, so by your loic defying death would not matter?

Regarding over protection, I agree to an extent, but again not really. Boxing, as Fenster points out is not like other sports. Just have a look after a fighter loses on any weekend and how many threads will go up saying that he has been exposed, was never any good and isn't worth shit any more. Losing in boxing matters to the fighter.

Some fighters take their losses and make light of it, Christobal Cruz has 11 defeats, Salido, Augustas? Losing does not mean you can't win your next fight, so I think the air of invincibility is only burst for an undefeated fighter if he is exposed. If someone lays a blueprint.

You point out Katsidis as someone who keeps losing and still remains popular, but that's an exception rather than the rule. Henry Akinwande only lost to Lennox Lewis, but nobody wanted him back on the big screen.

Nobody cared about Akinwande. Only people watched LLewis' crappy fights were to see if someone would knock his block off again.

Chris John's HBO career was over when he drew, he's still unbeaten but he's not on any more PPV's.

Chris John beat Juarez on the undercard of Marquez Mayweather. That was after the Draw. Since he is not calling out any featherweights (Salido/Gamboa/Lopez)

Generally speaking, for most fighters if you lose you're quickly forgotten and are forced to rebuild in relative obscurity.

I think it more relies on how you fought and how you lost.

How avidly are you still following the careers of Roman Karmazin, Kasim Ouma, Christian Mijares and Sechew Powell?

[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]All these guys are so past it. And we can see they do not have the talent that can upturn a division. Furthermore, I think his post mentioned nothing about Pacquiao. So I give him full credit for creating an unbiased post[/COLOR]

[Kev]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!

[IamInuit]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!

You mean their matchmakers.

[Kev]

Hang on why are Mijares, Powell and Ouma all past it. None of them are even 30 years old.

They are past it because they have lost right?

Had they won their last few fights they would still be on tv.

Saying nobody cared about Akinwande is ridiculous too. That's my whole point. Once a fighter loses, if the whims of the fickle fans dictate it, his chance has gone.

What you're effectively saying is that the really exciting fighters who lose in great slugfests, we will give them another chance, but if they lose in a fight that doesn't thrill us fuck them, they are past it.

No wonder top prospects work so hard at keeping their 0 until they get a shot at a belt!

You mean their matchmakers.

ha well them too. I'm not sure though, but I'd imagine for a promoter who snaps up a young Olympian say at the beginning of his career he probably loses money initially and won't see a return on his investment until he gets to world level and starts making some serious money.

I'm sure Warren has done well out of Khan and De Gale from fairly on, but the talented fighters from whom a lot is expected but don't have a massive appeal instantly probably don't generate much cash until they get to the belts.

Take the Columbians for instance. Landra, Rigondeaux, Solis et al. They probably haven't made a ton of cash for their promoters yet, but are seen as long term investments. If they never reach the big time, the promoters probably cut a loss, so of course they are going to try and make sure they market them right.

Ultimately we the fans just want the best fights, the interests of the boxers and promoters are of little concern to us. Well they want to earn, it's their business and livlihoods and their interests come first for them.

The UFC is good for everybody fights everybody matchups, but then that organisation controls ever fighter so whoever wins or loses is no risk to them.

[IamInuit]

Look when so called prospects are being spoon fed to a title shot, there is something wrong and it’s systemic. Alvarez is now talking about fighting Mayorga after Rhodes. Seriously I hope Rhodes throttles him and until recently I was a fan of Alvarez.