The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[Kev]

Fans should be smart enough EVEN WHEN THEY SEE A GUY LOSE to understand learning boxing and becoming skilled is a process, not an event nor an even path.


But I would say that they already are. As Conrad just said above Amir got beat, and he bounced back. Salido has lost a ton of times and is now a world champ.

People on forums will write off a fighter the second he underperforms, he can even win and end up a loser in their eyes, but within the boxing world a talented fighter can usually get a second shot if he's proven he's up to it.

The challenge for them is getting to that point. Every top prospect wants to win titles and have some big paydays far more than he wants to lose early so you can see him tested.

If you were a professional boxer now, a talented kid just turning pro at say 21 years old you would want a team around you that built you up properly. The goal would be to give you a solid boxing education, gradually building you up to a world title shot in 5 or so years time with as few accidents along the way.

Going in with the best from the beginning just means you will likely either never make it to the top or else be too war heavy to last long.

Guys like Alexander, Bradley, the Peterson brothers, David Lemiux etc were all brought along the right way. Lemiux's surprising loss will be a big setback for him, but hopefully with a previous 25-0 with 24 ko record prior to that he will get chances to redeem himself.

If he was already 17-6 or something he would have never have headlined FNF last week and would likely never get a real shot. You have to protect your investments. It's our entertainment, it's their careers.

[generalbulldog]

Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

[Kev]

Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

Why would he?

Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.

[marbleheadmaui]

Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

Why would he?

Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.

See I thik you have misidentified you job as a trainer. Your job is NOT to gudide him to a world title with no mishaps. Your job is to prepare him so that he has an enormously productive (in money and honors) career. That necessarily means a long time at the top. Even in today's watered down era, one cannot stay at the top if one arrived there not being properly prepared. Look at the massive improvements Yoriorkis Gamboa has been forced to make along the way because he has been battle tested. Now I agree there are exceptions, but it is the opposite of the ones you identified. Guys without an amateur pedigree must be taken more slowly as they are having their amateur experience in the pros. THOSE are the guys you have to be extra careful with.

Seriously, I mean on FNF you watch some guy 15-0 with a prominent amateur background blowing away some overmatched guy from Idaho in one round...what is the point?

[generalbulldog]

Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

Why would he?

Actually on second thoughts Manny Pacquaio is garbage to half this board so I do take your point

Keyboard warriors and armchair experts will always write off fighters, even those in the p4p but the best fighters can bounce back from defeats. Glen Johnson, Katsidis, Gatti, Ward etc all lost a bunch of fights but still get mad respect. No way would the boxing world regard Hagler as garbage, although he might have had to earn a title shot harder than some, although that was true in his own day. Nobody wants to fight a dangerous fighter with losses if somebody easier is available.

But if fighters like Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc all have lost fights. It just shows how big a deal it is to be undefeated. All hot talented fighters coming up know that they are more bankable with a big 0 by their name, at least until they have established themelves and fans can see what they are worth.

If I was managing a top class young fighter I'd see my task to guide him to a world title with no mishaps on the way.

There is another distinction to be made as well. Not every fighter comes into the pro game already a star. I'm talking about Olympians and amatuer standouts here. The ones likely to become tomorrow's champions and make a lot of money. You don't want them to lose early.

The tough kids out of the Mexican slums or the Phillipines swamps, those kids don't arrive with no silver spoon in their mouth and have to fight their way to greatness the hard way.

That's why we should all admire the greatness of a Manny Pacquaio, who literally came from nothing against all the odds, although as we know forum fight fans are fickle folk.

But when it comes to the Oympic stars, those with the pedigree as soon as they enter the game. If they lose on the way, then their manager has fucked up imo.

See I thik you have misidentified you job as a trainer. Your job is NOT to gudide him to a world title with no mishaps. Your job is to prepare him so that he has an enormously productive (in money and honors) career. That necessarily means a long time at the top. Even in today's watered down era, one cannot stay at the top if one arrived there not being properly prepared. Look at the massive improvements Yoriorkis Gamboa has been forced to make along the way because he has been battle tested. Now I agree there are exceptions, but it is the opposite of the ones you identified. Guys without an amateur pedigree must be taken more slowly as they are having their amateur experience in the pros. THOSE are the guys you have to be extra careful with.

Seriously, I mean on FNF you watch some guy 15-0 with a prominent amateur background blowing away some overmatched guy from Idaho in one round...what is the point?

To build him up as some beastly fighter that can be the next superstar in boxing. Or record padding as people like to call it. I know what you mean about 15-0 fighters against some guy from Idaho with a record of 5-20 with 1ko.

[DogTheBountyHunter]

The only thing a zero is good for is hyping and overrating a fighter.

[fan johnny]

Marvin Hagler is 1 of my all time favorite fighters and he had 2 losses as a prospect before meeting Antuofermo for the mw title in '79. Hagler in this day and age would be called a garbage fighter or exposed by this generation's fans. That's the sad reality. Undefeated records seems to matter a lot to boxing fans and especially casual boxing fans these days. Whereas in the old days no one really cares. It was resume and opposition that counts.

I think it is more about perception, than it is the record standing by itself. If it can be sold a promoter will take advantage of it. You will never be able to shut Floyd's mouth as long as he has a zero and he sells it like he a used car dealer.

When stepped into the ring against Duran 71-1 was Leonard 27-0. It was a very big big selling point at the time that Duran had vowed to the people never to loose again. I don't think casual fans and avid boxing fans alike even care the JCC jr has a 0 in the L column. Is it a meaningless record? Certainly not! It sells tickets.