Having a few losses is looked down up to harshly...

i mean yeah having, and keeping an 0 is great, and ideal, but it is not the be all, and end of a great fighters mark. i just feel that so many great fighters who may have losses against other gr8 fighters is ok, and really does not make them any lower all time, or any less great imo! do you fellas feel that having a few losses, or no losses is a big deal in the overall picture, or not? especially if the losses came either early on or to other great fighter in close fights. I agree with you completely. I actually started a thread just like this a while back "Losses should not be a focal point" Losses are overrated, they just typically mean the fighter has stepped up and has challenged himself. Look what happened to Hatton and Dawson nearly lost his 0 because he stepped up (and btw, I wouldnt think any less of Dawson if he had lost his unbeaten record)

Wow..........I agree with a Calzaghe fan.....Fuck a Duck.........Great post dutchie......And Ima Karma ya ass up for this one Thanks, appreciated.

I think if you lose a fight then you are a bum, which is why Calzaghe is the best. Just kidding. It depends who you lose to. Sometimes a loss can be judged too harshly, sometimes not harshly enough, and that usually depends on whether we are a fan. Take Antonio Margarito, his critics seize on his five losses, but three are basically meaningless, the Santos one at 154 is understndable, but the Williams one definitely 'counts' and raises some pretty valid questions about how good Margarito is. Wow..........I agree with a Calzaghe fan.....Fuck a Duck.........Great post dutchie......And Ima Karma ya ass up for this one

I think if you lose a fight then you are a bum, which is why Calzaghe is the best. Just kidding. It depends who you lose to. Sometimes a loss can be judged too harshly, sometimes not harshly enough, and that usually depends on whether we are a fan. Take Antonio Margarito, his critics seize on his five losses, but three are basically meaningless, the Santos one at 154 is understndable, but the Williams one definitely 'counts' and raises some pretty valid questions about how good Margarito is.

Emanuel Augustus>>>>>>>undefeated Fighter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Augustus Go..........................go Augustus Go....................

he is, but I have wanted to cry when I fouled out of one of our biggest basketball games and was out the whole 4th quarter. I was a big part of the team, and stretched the court out because I would knock down threes like a mother. I wanted to cry when we lost football games that had a lot of meaning. It's not that he is a mental midget, it is that he just wants it so bad and loses. Then he showed his true colors by being a champ and fighting Margs again, when he didnt have to. I feel him, because uit sucks when you bust your ass and try your hardest and it isnt good enough. You want it so bad, but your best just wasnt good enough. That shit hurts. I never lost in the ring, but there were times when I didnt listen to my dad and corner and took more hits than I should have. I still won, but it sucked because I didnt show my best when I worked so fucking hard. I would want to cry, because all I wanted to do was win, and I did, but not as easy as I should have. All I wanted to do was be my best, and fight at my best, but sometimes I left the ring feeling I should have did better. I knew that it wasnt my best. So I can imagine how it feels to lose and know that you could have and should have done better, but didnt. agreed my brother.

i mean yeah having, and keeping an 0 is great, and ideal, but it is not the be all, and end of a great fighters mark. i just feel that so many great fighters who may have losses against other gr8 fighters is ok, and really does not make them any lower all time, or any less great imo! do you fellas feel that having a few losses, or no losses is a big deal in the overall picture, or not? especially if the losses came either early on or to other great fighter in close fights. ...LOLOL...not in this country, they are working hard in our schools to take out the adjectives "winners" and "loosers"...I mean, there's no need for a winner or looser when everyone is equal... Kabuki Joe

yeah, i agree with you to some degree but on the other hand, if you aim to be considered an elite fighter, a fighter right at the top of the sport, you can't have been bested by too many people, at least not without avenging your losses... and the vast majority of the fighters we spend our time discussing on here are elite fighters, or border-line elite fighters... you should be judged accordingly depending on your status and skill-set I disagree to a certain extent. Pacquiao is deemed unworthy by some just because he lost early in his career. He didn't have the privilege of a great trainer and was basically fighting out of sheer violence. He was a kid. That 0 is worthless without a great challenge. Sven Ottke, eat your heart out.

yeah, i agree with you to some degree but on the other hand, if you aim to be considered an elite fighter, a fighter right at the top of the sport, you can't have been bested by too many people, at least not without avenging your losses... and the vast majority of the fighters we spend our time discussing on here are elite fighters, or border-line elite fighters... you should be judged accordingly depending on your status and skill-set

Thats the way that I feel about Cintron. HE is OK. He could really be a good contender for anyone in the WW division. He will give P Will a hard fight. Cotto a hard fight. He gave Margs a hard fight. He will beat Berto, Quintana, Collazo, Forbes. He just happened to run into Marghs, and come in the WW division at a hard time. Cintron isnt that bad. biggest thing with kermit is he is a mental midget.

Being Undefeated Champion >>> 2 or 3 loses is igh but 6 Loses? is a no go

This is a great thread and I could not agree more. For mine, people who place a massive amount of stock in being undefeated do not know a great deal about boxing. good post.

This is a great thread and I could not agree more. For mine, people who place a massive amount of stock in being undefeated do not know a great deal about boxing.

I think a good quote for this, is what David Hayes trainer Adam Booth daid after the Enzo fight "There is nothing wrong with losing as long as you dared to take a risk" For me, that sums it up really. The Hayemaker doesn't lie! Real talk.

Losses aren't always devastating, unless they're by KO's, wide UD's, or to scrubs. Too many people shit on a fighter for losin regardless of the closeness of the fight or the caliber of his comp. A lotta fighters learn a lesson and come back as tougher and better fighters after they lose. exactly why i made this thread. thanks, good post

It depends how your lose, and how you rise above that loss or losses.

Losses aren't always devastating, unless they're by KO's, wide UD's, or to scrubs. Too many people shit on a fighter for losin regardless of the closeness of the fight or the caliber of his comp. A lotta fighters learn a lesson and come back as tougher and better fighters after they lose.

True, a loss or two really cripples a boxer's standing a little too harshly sometimes. Look at some MMA greats, it's not uncommon to have 5+ losses on their records, although it's a lot "easier" to lose an mma match because of the different styles and elements involved.

I think a good quote for this, is what David Hayes trainer Adam Booth daid after the Enzo fight "There is nothing wrong with losing as long as you dared to take a risk" For me, that sums it up really.

Losing to great fighters is not looked down upon harshly, its when fighters lose to nobodies that ruins their rep.