The meaninlessness of being unbeaten

[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.

[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.

[Taeth]

HOF trainer Whitey Bimstein "Show me a fighter who hasn't lost and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anyone."

Michael Phelps has lost. Jim Thorpe lost. Lance Armstrong has lost. The 1927 Yankees lost. The 1985 Chicago Bears lost. Lefty Grove lost. Michael Jordan Lost. The 1988 Edmonton Oilers lost. Alexander Karelin lost. Carl Lewis lost. Naim Suleymanoglu lost. Roger Federer has lost. Tiger Woods has lost.
There is simply no sport where being unbeaten has any particular meaning or tie to greatness. Nor should there be. Human beings are simply too human and too similar for any team or individual competing at the highest level over time to overcome the minor injuries, disadvantageous matchups, off nights, aging, illnesses or other distractions that compromise training and/or performance. Nobody is, nor will anyone ever be, THAT much better than the rest of the world in a given endeavor to declare permanent dominance.

The above list consists of arguably the greatest individual athletes and teams across 100 years of American sport. All of them were defeated at one time or another. Yet there greatness is unquestioned. Why should boxing be any different?

Being unbeaten in any endeavor is invariably a function of three things. 1. Competing against less than the best competition 2. Cherry picking only favorable matchups and 3. Time.
Have there been unbeaten athletes? Occasionally. Johnny Weismuller springs to mind. Does that mean he was a superior swimmer to Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? No. It means in a hundred years of swimming competition he was an oddity.
Yet somehow in boxing, some are trying to turn being unbeaten into a sign of greatness. It is a phony idea and damages our sport. Rocky Marciano went 49-0 and retired at 33. f he had lost to say Roland LaStarza in their first fight and gone 48-1 would he really be a different quality fighter? Marciano's greatness rests not on his being unbeaten, heck he lost as an amateur. Does anyone think if Marciano had fought Joe Frazier's schedule that he'd have gone unbeaten? Does anyone doubt had Frazier fought Rocky's that he might have gone unbeaten? If Marciano had fought for three more years, how many think he would have retired unbeaten? Marciano's greatness rests on his retiring with no compelling challenger left to fight, not on his being unbeaten.

Here is why the overrated importance of being unbeaten is damaging our sport. Young fighters are too protected, don't learn the hard lessons early and by the time they meet adversity in their 25th fight? They have no idea how to cope with it. Second, it harms the development of young fighters because one learns more from someone who is more expert than from someone who is less. That is almost necessarily going to entail a loss here and there if learning the craft is the goal. Last, overrating the importance of being unbeaten keeps us the fans from seeing the highest quality fights on a regular basis. Why? Well because fighters and promoters know some idiot boxing fan will shout EXPOSED every time someone loses.

Ask yourself a simple question. Michael Katsidis has lost two fights. Anybody NOT going to tune in for his next fight? What we as fans should desire is two things, first the highest quality fighters possible. We should want them skilled, and tempered and resilient and tested. If that means they get to a title fight at 30-4 and are highly polished, isn't that much better for us that if they are 35-0 and less skilled or resilient? Don't fall for the silly counterargument "So it takes a loss to be great?" Of course not. But price of learning as exacting a craft as boxing to the highest standard makes a loss here and there overwhelmingly likely. The second thing we as fans should desire is watching the very best fight the very best over and over and over again. Hagler and Hearns had both lost prior to their fight. Any complaints there? When two exceptionafighters meetl ? Someone is almost always going to lose. So freaking what? After Hearns lost to Hagler, weren't you looking forward to seeing him again? Know what Hearns did in his comeback fight? He waxed James Shuler in one round...oh yeah James Shuler was unbeaten. Look at a partial list of retired unbeaten fighters. Marciano, Calzaghe, Marsh, Mayweather, Ottke, Lopez. Or how about some currently active fighters without a loss? Chris John, JCC Jr, Canelo, Omar Narvaez, Povetkin and Vanes Martirosyan. What do they all share? Certainly not all-time greatness. Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Alexis Arguello, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis ALL lost in their prime. Anyone wish to argue they don't belong in boxing's pantheon?

We shouldn't argue unbeaten=great, and when fighters, or more often therir more devoted fans, try to claim that correlation we should laugh at them. Of course moronic fans who squeal "exposed" whenever a promising prospect is beaten are a big part of this problem as well. Boxing is a craft, an art and believing one can attain excellence in any craft without the occasional slip up is silly.
We as fans should require of top fighters looking for the title great test themselves against the best as often as their good health permits. There is nothing wrong with tuneups in between. No excuses for "being ducked" etc. Want to earn the title great? Find a way to make the fights. If a fighter wishes to prioritize other goals? That's fine, but they are sacrificing their legacy. Their choice.
Can there be an unbeaten great fighter? Sure. Enough fighters will statistically produce a wide range of career outcomes. But it CANNOT be that being unbeaten is what the legacy rests upon. Can being unbeaten be impressive? Sure. But only if you've fought the best possible set of opponents.

I'm new here and this I have posted elsewhere. If this kind of thing is NOT what you guys like to talk about? Please let me know.

This doesn't always work. Look at Lopez and Mayweather and Calzaghe. ALl great fighters are undefeated. Sure I felt Calzaghe lost to Hopkins, and Mayweather had a really close fight with Castillo, but they didn't duck guys.

I think the problem is that people are never satisfied with what someone does in this sport, and Manny pacquiao is a perfect example of that. What hasn't he accomplished? And yet he gets criticized for taking on Mosley who stylistically could pose some problems.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

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!

Here's what I'm chewing on. 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. Because fighters are being brought along to be unbeaten rather than skilled we get shabby performances like Ortiz against Maidana when he didn't know enough boxing to stop a guy who was freaking double shuffling to him and then throwing a lead right hand! Or shabby performances like Berto's the other night when he didn't have the vaguest clue how to take a step to the side to change the angle of the fight.

I'm not suggesting a talented fighter be put in against the best from the beginning. I am suggesting he be put in against challenges all along the way so by the time he meets the best, he is ready to perform at that level. Ray Leonard was brought along the right way. Fast guys, strong guys, bigger guys, punchers, boxers etc so when he fought Benitez? He was a polished, tested, skilled guy. Kostya Tzyu is another brought the right way. Hell he was ready for a still dangerous Juan freakin Laporte in his fourth fight! Now Fernando Vargas was ruined because he was rushed and I'm not suggesting that either. But the focus on being unbeaten works against fighter development.

[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.