The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[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.

[Kev]

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.

Unfortunately it's necessary though and the fault of fans as much as anything. If a fighter loses coming up there is less interest in him and his career is affected. It is absolutely essential for any up and coming fighter with real prospects that they dont' have too many mistakes early on because as soon as they do the tv networks can't do anything with them.

Look at some of the top prospects in recent years whose losses have left them by the wayside. Joel Julio is just a gatekeeper now, a few years ago he was being tipped by Jim Lampley as a future star. Whetever happened to Ricardo Torres or Chazz Witherspoon?

As soon as you start losing you are effectively done in terms of having a succesful career of your own. At best you can continue to fight as a trialist for other prospects.

That is driven by the commercial aspect of the sport, which ultimately is all about giving the fans what they want. Fans forget fighters with disgusting ease, just witness the threads on any given weekend.

Any promotional outfit and management team worth anything will try and keep their best fighters unbeaten long enough for them to get mainstream exposure because if they slip up along the way the chances are high they will never get there, as we the fans won't want to see them.

[fan johnny]

I'd say it means more to the fighter with the unbeaten record than it does to the boxing fan.

Larry Merchant to Andre Berto,

"Is it possible, that tonight, um.. with this kind of fight, the kind of fight that thrills people, that you would get more recognition, than you did for all the fights you've won?"

Berto "I mean ah.. Maybe from you! ah... you know, cause ahmm... you said you wanted me to fight more exciting fights, but ahm.. there's nothing ah.. but ah.. nothn' worst than a loss, but I'm just going to take it, get back in the gym and maybe get better and you know ahm.... hopeful get back with a rematch"

What I got from that was Merchant, was that he now has more respect for Berto with a slug fest loss and feels most people view it like he does. I certainly do.

[Kev]

I'd say it means more to the fighter with the unbeaten record than it does to the boxing fan.

Larry Merchant to Andre Berto,

"Is it possible, that tonight, um.. with this kind of fight, the kind of fight that thrills people, that you would get more recognition, than you did for all the fights you've won?"

Berto "I mean ah.. Maybe from you! ah... you know, cause ahmm... you said you wanted me to fight more exciting fights, but ahm.. there's nothing ah.. but ah.. nothn' worst than a loss, but I'm just going to take it, get back in the gym and maybe get better and you know ahm.... hopeful get back with a rematch"

What I got from that was Merchant, was that he now has more respect for Berto with a slug fest loss and feels most people view it like he does. I certainly do.

Nah doesn't follow at all. The limelight will be on Ortiz now and although Berto might have won respect he will be taking a big paycut in his career because less people will want to pay to see him fight.

The boxing industry is more like the music and film industries than other sports. You stop making hits you get forgotten fast.

If he loses again he will virtually disappear as a headline fighter.

Just look at guys like Christian Mijares, Jorge Linares, Rey Bautista, Francisco Bojado etc.

Lose a big fight and it's a long road back. Lose another and if you have a second career to fall back on you may as well retire.

Berto can bounce back of course. But another defeat soon and he may join Bojado, Torres, Jermain Taylor etc in early retirement

[fan johnny]

I'd say it means more to the fighter with the unbeaten record than it does to the boxing fan.

Larry Merchant to Andre Berto,

"Is it possible, that tonight, um.. with this kind of fight, the kind of fight that thrills people, that you would get more recognition, than you did for all the fights you've won?"

Berto "I mean ah.. Maybe from you! ah... you know, cause ahmm... you said you wanted me to fight more exciting fights, but ahm.. there's nothing ah.. but ah.. nothn' worst than a loss, but I'm just going to take it, get back in the gym and maybe get better and you know ahm.... hopeful get back with a rematch"

What I got from that was Merchant, was that he now has more respect for Berto with a slug fest loss and feels most people view it like he does. I certainly do.

Nah doesn't follow at all. The limelight will be on Ortiz now and although Berto might have won respect he will be taking a big paycut in his career because less people will want to pay to see him fight.

The boxing industry is more like the music and film industries than other sports. You stop making hits you get forgotten fast.

If he loses again he will virtually disappear as a headline fighter.

Just look at guys like Christian Mijares, Jorge Linares, Rey Bautista, Francisco Bojado etc.

Lose a big fight and it's a long road back. Lose another and if you have a second career to fall back on you may as well retire.

Berto can bounce back of course. But another defeat soon and he may join Bojado, Torres, Jermain Taylor etc in early retirement

Berto got caught early and Ortiz was in his element and just kept it coming. The fight could have ended by a KO from either fighter. A rematch with Ortiz could show us a completely different fight as adjustments are made. If your predicting Berto is washed up then, I completely disagree. He has had his chin tested which hasn't happened before. What made the fight so exciting and kept me on the edge of my seat was either fighter could have won. Now, I was totally for Ortiz to win.

Pacquiao's stock didn't go down when he lost to Morales. He went on to win his next fight and the rematch with Morales and we all know the story. There isn't anyone in the division that Berto isn't a real threat to. He is exciting to watch and we know it takes more than one punch to take him out. If he loses more fight in close decisions it doesn't make his fights less exciting and who else is in the division he would loose to? Look at the possible opponents. I'd say he's well worth the price of admission.

[Kev]

I'm not saying Berto is washed up at all, fighters come back from defeats all the time.

I'm just saying that boxing is by it's nature an unforgiving sport. If he loses again he will be at the crossroads and could well go the way of Jeff Lacy, Jermain Taylor, Ricky Hatton etc.

My point is aimed at the orignal poster. He says defeats don't matter, I'm just pointing out that they do. Two or three and usually you're out.

There are a few who get repeat chances, Rocky Juarez, Michael Katsidis, but for every one of those nearly men, we have ten whose defeats consigned them to either fighting undercards in Europe hoping for a chance to have a shot as a gatekeeper against an up and comer to get back into things or else retirement.

Bonjado retired, Torres retired, Joel Julio is just a trial horse, Jeff Lacy as good as gone.

Berto will still get a chance or two to recover and hopefully he will. But the loss will definitely hurt him.

But I think this is the way it should be. To the winner the stakes, to the loser a lonely car ride home. It's all very well sayng we should put less emphasis on losses but how does that translate?

Even the OP will want to see the best matchups made, and when a guy like Kirkland gets KO'd in one round, the clamour to see him challenge for Martinez title will have been all but silenced. He has to earn his way back.

Also, fight fans aren't stupid. It's not so much the 0 as the manner of how they lose it. Martinez lost to Williams in a great, close fight, didn't hurt him so much. Marquez lost to Mayweather well above his weight class, again he can bounce back.

The current way things are is pretty fair and if you want to impress and get to the top you need to try not to have too many mistakes before you get there.

[miron_lang]

Berto might have won respect he will be taking a big paycut in his career because less people will want to pay to see him fight.

That is bad for him. Attendance for the Ortiz fight was like 2000.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

Unfortunately it's necessary though and the fault of fans as much as anything. If a fighter loses coming up there is less interest in him and his career is affected. It is absolutely essential for any up and coming fighter with real prospects that they dont' have too many mistakes early on because as soon as they do the tv networks can't do anything with them.

Look at some of the top prospects in recent years whose losses have left them by the wayside. Joel Julio is just a gatekeeper now, a few years ago he was being tipped by Jim Lampley as a future star. Whetever happened to Ricardo Torres or Chazz Witherspoon?

As soon as you start losing you are effectively done in terms of having a succesful career of your own. At best you can continue to fight as a trialist for other prospects.

That is driven by the commercial aspect of the sport, which ultimately is all about giving the fans what they want. Fans forget fighters with disgusting ease, just witness the threads on any given weekend.

Any promotional outfit and management team worth anything will try and keep their best fighters unbeaten long enough for them to get mainstream exposure because if they slip up along the way the chances are high they will never get there, as we the fans won't want to see them.

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

[Kev]

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

Just a few examples.

Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.

[Kev]

Also, I think fans can already distinguish between a Mayweather unbeaten record and a Sven Ottke unbeaten record.

Ottke's 0 never got him headline PPV fights in America because outside of Europe largely nobody did care.

It's a straw man argument. You're arguing against a worship of undefeated fighters that doesn't exist.

The only 4 I can think of who get credit for their records are Marciano, Lopez, Floyd and Calzaghe. Every one of them is deserving of that credit.

[marbleheadmaui]

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

Just a few examples.

Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.

But I don't want Kahn to fight Bradley because Bradley's unbeaten. It's because I think he's the best possible challenge. Try it this way. Does Omar Narvaez excite you the way Vic Darnyinain does? Who would you rather see, a one loss Donaire fight a two loss Agbeko or an unbeaten Yamanka at 118?

The difference between Marciano and Mayweather is Marciano fought EVERYONE who was a remote challenge. Floyd? Um, well, um, not so much. No serious fan thinks Marciano accomplished more than Dempsey, but he accomplished all he could have. Valuing being unbeaten incents fighters to NOT do that.

When you say "this is how it has to be" in boxing, I think you're dead wrong. It was NEVER this way until about 15 years ago. Almost every ATG fighter lost early and along the way in their careers. Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Arguello, Louis, Langford, Duran, Pep, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Robinson, Hagler, Monzon, Tunney etc. Why? Because they were brought along to become the best possible fighters. That meant taking serious challenges all along the way. Now? Fighters are just brought along to be unbeaten and they fight mediocrity as long as possible.

It is our fault as fans for buying into this.

[Kev]

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

Just a few examples.

Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.

But I don't want Kahn to fight Bradley because Bradley's unbeaten. It's because I think he's the best possible challenge. Try it this way. Does Omar Narvaez excite you the way Vic Darnyinain does? Who would you rather see, a one loss Donaire fight a two loss Agbeko or an unbeaten Yamanka at 118?

The difference between Marciano and Mayweather is Marciano fought EVERYONE who was a remote challenge. Floyd? Um, well, um, not so much. No serious fan thinks Marciano accomplished more than Dempsey, but he accomplished all he could have. Valuing being unbeaten incents fighters to NOT do that.

When you say "this is how it has to be" in boxing, I think you're dead wrong. It was NEVER this way until about 15 years ago. Almost every ATG fighter lost early and along the way in their careers. Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Arguello, Louis, Langford, Duran, Pep, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Robinson, Hagler, Monzon, Tunney etc. Why? Because they were brought along to become the best possible fighters. That meant taking serious challenges all along the way. Now? Fighters are just brought along to be unbeaten and they fight mediocrity as long as possible.

It is our fault as fans for buying into this.

But Bradley is unbeaten. Had he lost to Alexander would you still want him to be Khan's next fight, or would be wanting him to go in with Alexander instead?

The earlier guys lost fights, but they also fought about three times as often. Hagler's losses clearly affected him. He had to wait for years and years to get a title shot. The other guys fought and lost before the PPV era.

Fights are big money now, but when a fighter loses his commercial value plummets.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting? That managers and promoters should give their fighters harder fights sooner? I don't agree. I think fighters can get ruined if they are pushed too fast. An early loss might damage their appeal, or their confidence to the point where it never they recover.

Fighters are like golden geese. They can make a lot of money, they can provide a lot of entertainment but they need to be brought along slowly.

The best and most crowd pleasing fighters can lose and still be big draws. Gatti was the king of that. But most fighters who lose and then fade away is because fans, including me and you don't want to see them, at least not in the big matchups.

Alexander vs Khan or Bradley vs Khan?

[marbleheadmaui]

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

Just a few examples.

Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.

But I don't want Kahn to fight Bradley because Bradley's unbeaten. It's because I think he's the best possible challenge. Try it this way. Does Omar Narvaez excite you the way Vic Darnyinain does? Who would you rather see, a one loss Donaire fight a two loss Agbeko or an unbeaten Yamanka at 118?

The difference between Marciano and Mayweather is Marciano fought EVERYONE who was a remote challenge. Floyd? Um, well, um, not so much. No serious fan thinks Marciano accomplished more than Dempsey, but he accomplished all he could have. Valuing being unbeaten incents fighters to NOT do that.

When you say "this is how it has to be" in boxing, I think you're dead wrong. It was NEVER this way until about 15 years ago. Almost every ATG fighter lost early and along the way in their careers. Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Arguello, Louis, Langford, Duran, Pep, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Robinson, Hagler, Monzon, Tunney etc. Why? Because they were brought along to become the best possible fighters. That meant taking serious challenges all along the way. Now? Fighters are just brought along to be unbeaten and they fight mediocrity as long as possible.

It is our fault as fans for buying into this.

But Bradley is unbeaten. Had he lost to Alexander would you still want him to be Khan's next fight, or would be wanting him to go in with Alexander instead?

The earlier guys lost fights, but they also fought about three times as often. Hagler's losses clearly affected him. He had to wait for years and years to get a title shot. The other guys fought and lost before the PPV era.

Fights are big money now, but when a fighter loses his commercial value plummets.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting? That managers and promoters should give their fighters harder fights sooner? I don't agree. I think fighters can get ruined if they are pushed too fast. An early loss might damage their appeal, or their confidence to the point where it never they recover.

Fighters are like golden geese. They can make a lot of money, they can provide a lot of entertainment but they need to be brought along slowly.

The best and most crowd pleasing fighters can lose and still be big draws. Gatti was the king of that. But most fighters who lose and then fade away is because fans, including me and you don't want to see them, at least not in the big matchups.

Alexander vs Khan or Bradley vs Khan?

Had Alexander beaten Bradley, I'd want Alexander. But NOT because he was unbeaten. Had Alexander brought a loss or two or three into that fight and won? I'd STILL want him to fight Kahn.

Hagler wasn't not given a title shot in 1978 because of his losses to the Philly crowd. It was because Hugo Corro was scared to death of him.

I want fighters brought along to become the best fighters they can be, not just the fighters with an unbeaten record. I want fans to be smart enough not to fall for the idiocy that being unbeaten in and of itself means something. I want to watch great fighters fight, not unbeaten records being built.

I want people to learn from the eleven loss Solido taking out unbeaten JuanMa. I want people to stop equating one's record in a vaccum with accomplishment as a fighter.

Rant over

[Conrad]

The bold is what I'm trying to change. It IS the fans fault. WE need to stop valuing being unbeaten for the sport to regain its equilibrium.

In the case of ultra exciting fighters, like Katsidis as you already pointed out, we already do.

But for the vast majority of them once they lost, especially once they lose a few I expect even you yourself would be critical of them getting opportunities for big fights ahead of the other unbeaten guys.

Boxing is not football or tennis. You can't have three mediocre seasons and then have a great year the following year because once you've started losing your chance has gone.

Just a few examples.

Who would you like to see Amir Khan fight next? Tim Bradley or Juan Diaz?

What about Sergio Martinez? Last month Max Kellerman was saying that the fighter we all wanted to see him in against was James Kirkland. Do we still think that now?

The way boxing works now is ultimately the only way it can. A fighter can come back from a defeat, it happens all the time. But it's often a long road back, more so if you are not a crowd friendly, exciting fighter.

The path to the top is lonely and hard, and it's easy to get hijacked along the way. That's always been part of the appeal. Unlike the Dallas Cowboys or Chelsea these guys often only get one chance at winning their sports biggest prizes. That level of finality makes it compelling though.

But I don't want Kahn to fight Bradley because Bradley's unbeaten. It's because I think he's the best possible challenge. Try it this way. Does Omar Narvaez excite you the way Vic Darnyinain does? Who would you rather see, a one loss Donaire fight a two loss Agbeko or an unbeaten Yamanka at 118?

The difference between Marciano and Mayweather is Marciano fought EVERYONE who was a remote challenge. Floyd? Um, well, um, not so much. No serious fan thinks Marciano accomplished more than Dempsey, but he accomplished all he could have. Valuing being unbeaten incents fighters to NOT do that.

When you say "this is how it has to be" in boxing, I think you're dead wrong. It was NEVER this way until about 15 years ago. Almost every ATG fighter lost early and along the way in their careers. Armstrong, Greb, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Arguello, Louis, Langford, Duran, Pep, Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Robinson, Hagler, Monzon, Tunney etc. Why? Because they were brought along to become the best possible fighters. That meant taking serious challenges all along the way. Now? Fighters are just brought along to be unbeaten and they fight mediocrity as long as possible.

It is our fault as fans for buying into this.

But Bradley is unbeaten. Had he lost to Alexander would you still want him to be Khan's next fight, or would be wanting him to go in with Alexander instead?

The earlier guys lost fights, but they also fought about three times as often. Hagler's losses clearly affected him. He had to wait for years and years to get a title shot. The other guys fought and lost before the PPV era.

Fights are big money now, but when a fighter loses his commercial value plummets.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting? That managers and promoters should give their fighters harder fights sooner? I don't agree. I think fighters can get ruined if they are pushed too fast. An early loss might damage their appeal, or their confidence to the point where it never they recover.

Fighters are like golden geese. They can make a lot of money, they can provide a lot of entertainment but they need to be brought along slowly.

The best and most crowd pleasing fighters can lose and still be big draws. Gatti was the king of that. But most fighters who lose and then fade away is because fans, including me and you don't want to see them, at least not in the big matchups.

Alexander vs Khan or Bradley vs Khan?

I see your point Bilbo but Khan's still the man everyone wants to see in with Bradley and Khan isn't undefeated. I'm not agreeing with either side as I can see where you're both coming from.

Bilbo is just saying how it is and Marblehead is saying how it should be.

It's s shame really as we'd probably be treated to far more quality match-ups if there wasn't such a stigma associated with losing. Floyd for one probably would've fought Manny by now if there wasn't.

[brocktonblockbust]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein said that?? Guess he never heard of Rocco Marcheggiano of Brockton, Massachussetts. That guy named Rocco fought Joe The Brown Bomber Louis, Jersey Jow Walcott TWICE, Ezzard Charles TWICE, Don Cockell the European Champion, Archie The Mongoose Moore, etc.

No, he never fought nobody good.