Do boxing fans put too much stock in losses?

Unfortunately, we've reached a point in boxing history were being undefeated has become tremendously overrated. Part of the blame lies with the fighters themselves. When Mayweather points to his "zero" as a mark of his invincibility, he's really just marketing himself; but the notion takes on a life of its own. The truth is, if a fighter, no matter how great, fights long enough, he'll lose. "Sugar" Ray Robinson lost his first fight against Jake LaMotta, after forty consecutive wins. Julio Cesar Chavez didn't lose until his ninetieth fight. Undefeated records are a combination of competition (or lack thereof), ability, number of fights and sheer luck. Every now and then (as with Floyd's victory over Castillo in their first meeting) an undefeated fighter is handed a controversial win. If you look at all the greats of the past, virtually all of them lost some fights. Nothing more really needs to be said.

It's all about how you lose and how you come back. If you quit then I have a problem with you and i know you will quit again, so my interest is gone at that point. If you lose and go out fighting then it's all good as far as i'm concerned. If you lose and come back stronger then i don't see the problem?

it depends on the fighter. who they fought, how often they fight. i'll give an example. montiel had that crushing defeat to donaire but nobody is calling him a bum or washed up. he came back and stopped cermeno, who's a decent fighter. the same can be said about the guys in the super 6. as far as mma fans being more tolerant for losses, you have to take into consideration that theres so many different ways to lose a fight in mma. and there's so many different styles of fighting there. i think styles make fights more in that sport. someone may get tapped out by a decent wrestler/submission fighter but could go on to beat an elite striker. for me personally, it really depends on the media hype. if you're telling me the future of boxing is a guy who got knocked down by cosme rivera and hurt multiple times by luis collazo (berto!), i'm gonna go hard on him and criticize haha

Yeah a couple of the greatest of our era have based their legacies around being undefeated (Calzaghe and Mayweather). Fans and fighters now see this as a benchmark and as a result losing has become less accepted. Therefore, fighters are more afraid of challenges. If Martinez, Pacquiao and Mayweather were to fight each other a couple of times they would all probably come out with losses, but their legacy would last longer (they could be considered a slightly lesser version of Hearns/Duran/Hagler/Leonard/Benitez.) Losing ain't that bad; it's how you bounce back. Williams didn't take well to losing. Neither did Pavlik. Mayweather wouldn't. Khan's loss made him a better fighter, as did Pacquiao's losses. To summarise: losing isn't necessarily bad - losses can be avenged, lessons can be learned. Of course it CAN be bad (Ricky Hatton), but boxing fans should observe the sport with a bit more subtlety and realise that anything can happen in the ring.

Yes this is totally true. A lot of fighters really shine after a loss because they switch things up.

That’s the problem with boxing fans of this era, they constitute being undefeated as greatness (as do some fighters) which tells me they never appreciate the throwback greats like Robison, Lamotta, Fulmer to name a few.

Cotto & Margarito are simply horrible examples. A far better example would have been Berto maybe. Or Froch. But both Cotto & Margarito have recieved 2 vicious beatings, I mean bad. Those kind of losses cannot simply be pushed to the side. Those kind of beatings stay with a fighter.

They are re marketing Cotto and Margarito and are going to thrown them in for the rematch this year as we all know, it should be a great fight! I feel MMA fans are more more tolerant of fighters taking losses than boxing fans who feel the need to proclaim everyone finished or shot after losing. Yes, in boxing fighters take more sustained damage and more wear and tare but I do believe people should lighten up, one loss is not the end of the world! Yes, I rather see warriors fight it out and fight the best and everyone 2-3 times a year than be a pathetic lowlife lamer like Froyd Gayweather who fights once every 3 years but says "he's on top" when he ducks everyone and challenges the easiest opponent available. I think I could be 100-0 if I go with this game plan. Just fight retarded people and wait for the next one to come, 100 tards tried 100 failed

Sometimes they do some fighters improve after losses they can become better fighters.