The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[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?

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

I think fans are smart enough. The point regarding losses nowadays is that virtually all of them are televised. You don't want Alexander to face Khan because you saw him get beat, you saw that he quit mentally and that fight lost its appeal...for now, he can come back.

Salido actually is an argument against the point you are making A fighter with almost a dozen losses who still got another shot because the fans and promoters are smart enough to know he's a challenge. The same with Glen Johnson.

I just don't know what particular bone of contention you are chewing on, because as I see it you agree with me as far as what fights are being made. If a fighter has losses that weren't televised, or that we don't know about, they don't matter at all, he's still as good as unbeaten to us in terms of wanting to see him fight.

It's when we SEE them get beat, rather than any magical 0 number changing to a 1 that people are so quick to drop a fighter.

And ultimately, for the boxers, the prospects with chances of winning world titles, their career isn't about always facing the toughest challenges from the get go to maximise the fan's pleasure, it's to get into world title contention so that they have a chance of glory and a chance to make some real money for the time they are in the sport.

A talented fighter who is pitted against the best from the beginning and is already losing fights before he even gets on Friday Night Fights is being chronically mismanaged!