Loss Early help a young fighter?

[Hunter]

If Khan didnt lose to prescott would he be fighting all of these top fighters and would he have called out Bradley at this point in his career or would he have been moved more slowly? I think the loss will help him get to the top of the chain faster.

I think Mayweather could have gone down as the greatest of all time had he not gotten the decision against castillo. Maybe he would have thrown caution to the wind and fought, Hatton at 140, Cotto, Margarito, Paul Williams, and Pacquaio when they were at the top and deemed unbeatable. i think Floyd in his prime beats them all. I am not a floyd fan just saying how i see it. Fighters that try and protect the zero sometimes give up the best years of their career.

[Pugilistic]

i think it just depends on the fighter.

Some fighters learn alot from a loss early.

It appeared to help guys like Hopkins, Marquez, Khan, etc.

Other young fighters lose motivation and focus and basically never get back to a good level like Jaidon Codrington, Jeff Lacy,etc.

[marbleheadmaui]

i think it just depends on the fighter.

Some fighters learn alot from a loss early.

It appeared to help guys like Hopkins, Marquez, Khan, etc.

Other young fighters lose motivation and focus and basically never get back to a good level like Jaidon Codrington, Jeff Lacy,etc.

Yeah I agree with this. Many great fighters lost early, Armstrong, Arguello, Monzon etc and many great fighters began with notable unbeaten runs, Robinson, Chavez and Holmes.

Fighters can only be great by being daring matchmakers. THAT is the key.

[Fenster]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

[marbleheadmaui]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

I'd speculate on the bold slightly differently. I'll bet more often than not that loss represents a ceiling that the fighter never exceeeds but it doesn't lead to a "decline" in and of itself.

Having said that of course I'd also be that if I went through Bert Sugar's top 100 fighters of all time, 75 or more lost early.

[Fenster]

I agree with Pugilistic. This is purely down to the individual. Losing only looks beneficial when a fighter has success coming back from it.

I would STRONGLY bet that most losses result in a career decline.

Mayweather's close shave against Castillo wouldn't have made a jot of difference to him. Even though many believe he lost that fight, I have no doubt whatsoever he believes he won performing badly. So much so that he jumped straight back in with him to prove his point.

I'd speculate on the bold slightly differently. I'll bet more often than not that loss represents a ceiling that the fighter never exceeeds but it doesn't lead to a "decline" in and of itself.

Having said that of course I'd also be that if I went through Bert Sugar's top 100 fighters of all time, 75 or more lost early.

Yes.. stalling at a "level" is probably more accurate.

Virtually all losses lead to fighters being dropped in rankings, marketability etc. To progress from the stalling point is out of the norm.