Why do people put so much on a loss??

[Rome-By-Ko]

Loses don't matter in MMA because of the nature of the sport. Fighters can get caught in a variety of ways. A simple kick in the face you didn't see coming or a leg lock could take away your belt in a split second even if you have the best boxing skills. Besides, no one fighter controls the sport in a way that they can avoid fights and fight whenever they want to.

I agree with this..But boxing use to be the same way,one lost did not mean hit the showers ya know...

[The Big Dunn]

Well,I never thought it was about Mayweather but yet more about the network and the massage they send out to the viewer...But I think Mayweather's allure added with the networks and commentators eagerness to cast any losing fighter towards the trash is the problem and the blame for the way most fans look at fighters nowa days...You have these commentators who build up one fighter(because maybe they view him as more marketable)and throw salt on the other one..Khan Berto and Ortiz all took L's on HBO...All three were treated differently then Let's say Maidana Alexander Paulie M Abregu Matt's who lost on the same network..But yet were not sign to the network long term...


Networks should not be promoters(I know in essence their not)signing a fighter for three fights is not good for a network imo because it makes that network have a bias that's unavoidable...It also does not allow you to bring back fighters who are deserving(because they put up a good fight in a losing effort)because of trying to focus to much on the fight sign to the network..I do believe the Networks are to blame the most..Believe me they have the most influence on how the sport is viewed..It's them who put's so much on a los,and shows blatant bias and favoritism towards fighters who are hot on a winning streak or undefeated...

I really don't know when this became cool to do either..As a network who provides boxing on it's airwaves you'd think they would want to be as neutral as possible...It's no wonder you have guy's like Lampley openly sucking every fighter he believes will be the next big thing...It's sad..Long gone are the days when commentators and networks left their two cents out of it and listened to the public..Now they feed us what we are suppose to feel and this is why everyone's tolerance for fighters who take L's have wean...Sorry for the long rant but this is my opinion on it..I guess May takes a bit of the blame,but he is just one man..The media is the real tool that has done this to boxing..

I think you have to expect the commenttators to work in a way that meets their employers bottom line-which is higher ratings and more profit.

which fighters have been thrown in the trash as soon as they suffered a loss?

[Rome-By-Ko]

I think you have to expect the commenttators to work in a way that meets their employers bottom line-which is higher ratings and more profit.

which fighters have been thrown in the trash as soon as they suffered a loss?

Abergu(after the Bradley fight you did not see dude for almost two yrs on their network)Maidana(after his lost to Khan he was not seen or heard from for how long before he got slap in with Alexander with no promotion??)Peterson(after he drew with Ortiz,Ortiz got Berto and Peterson was shipped off to ESPN,and imo he did better then Ortiz in that fight)I mean the list goes on and on bro..I know commentators have to meet theirs employers bottom line which was my point in why Networks should stay the hell out of that kinda thing..Just focus on buying great fights,not trying to sign fighters overall long term..That sucks..

[The Big Dunn]

Abergu(after the Bradley fight you did not see dude for almost two yrs on their network)Maidana(after his lost to Khan he was not seen or heard from for how long before he got slap in with Alexander with no promotion??)Peterson(after he drew with Ortiz,Ortiz got Berto and Peterson was shipped off to ESPN,and imo he did better then Ortiz in that fight)I mean the list goes on and on bro..I know commentators have to meet theirs employers bottom line which was my point in why Networks should stay the hell out of that kinda thing..Just focus on buying great fights,not trying to sign fighters overall long term..That sucks..

But "buying fighters" is really "protecting your investment". I think every business does that to a certain degree.

I see your points but you have to consider who people have as managers, promoters, etc. A fighters team needs to have a plan in place. It may not be the networks just dropped them. I think a fighters marketability and his ability to market himself also plays a role.

I also understand your point about great fights. The problem with that is no one knows whether a fight will be great or not. So HBO gives the spots to their guys who are proven.
Of course that doesn't explain why I've seen kieth Thurman more than Brian Viloria.

Hopefully, with the networks like cbs, nbc getting back into boxing this will change things.

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

Why? Cause that's how promoters sell fighters nowadays to the public and it's been implanted in so many people's head they automatically think a loss = done career. I think it's a mind thing, people are told so much "oh so and so is good he's undefeated" so when they see a number other than an 0 on the L column they automatically think the dude sucks.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Why? Cause that's how promoters sell fighters nowadays to the public and it's been implanted in so many people's head they automatically think a loss = done career. I think it's a mind thing, people are told so much "oh so and so is good he's undefeated" so when they see a number other than an 0 on the L column they automatically think the dude sucks.

It's been an promotional gimmick since the beginning. It sounds real good in the introductions. Casual fans think that a guy with a 30-0 record must be invincible. They don't know that some fighters have been spoon-fed light opposition in order to pad their records. If they stick around the sport long enough, those fans begin to understand that a guy with a few losses can be a killer and the undefeated guy a protected hype-job.

[THE REED]

MMA is better than Boxing in that one simple aspect.

Fighters aren't so easily disregarded by a loss.

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

It's been an promotional gimmick since the beginning. It sounds real good in the introductions. Casual fans think that a guy with a 30-0 record must be invisible. They don't know that some fighters have been spoon-fed light opposition in order to pad their records. If they stick around the sport long enough, those fans begin to understand that a guy with a few losses can be a killer and the undefeated guy a protected hype-job.

Then there's also people like Molina, Lara and Campillo. Fighters who have 1 or several losses on their records and people will look at them like "Well he got 3-4 losses, he must not be good" without knowing what actually happened in those fights.

[SlySlickSmooth]

This is why we cannot allow our P4P Kings to have undefeated records, well of course unless they really earned it, everyone wants to follow the leader.. If the leader had losses, it probably wouldn't matter.

[Rome-By-Ko]

Then there's also people like Molina, Lara and Campillo. Fighters who have 1 or several losses on their records and people will look at them like "Well he got 3-4 losses, he must not be good" without knowing what actually happened in those fights.

This is so true...