Why do people put so much on a loss??

What a bunch of junk^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you don't know anything about the business. When you loss EVERYBODY wants to fight you and you'll have more promotors and matchmakers at your door than ever before!!! Ray Who's knocking on Khan's door?

What a bunch of junk^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you don't know anything about the business. When you loss EVERYBODY wants to fight you and you'll have more promotors and matchmakers at your door than ever before!!! Ray

I honestly believe it's because the majority of fighters rely on their fanbase to secure fights. The more popular you are, the more money you bring in, the more other fighters want to fight you for money. As soon as you lose, you lose your momentum. It's usually 3-6 months between fights, where your fans lose interest and find other fighters to follow. Without that fan base to bring in money - you're strapped to find yourself a meaning fight. Hence - the rut that Khan and other fighters find themselves in after a loss.

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. If it were only so easy. There have been few fighters in the sport that fought a good number of serious opponents and still retained their undefeated record. Muhammad Ali was undefeated after 31 contests, even after facing Sonny Liston (twice) and Floyd Patterson, among others. Ali took his first loss against Joe Frazier, another ATG heavyweight. This was less than six months after coming off a three-and-a-half year ban. Two more good examples would be Julio Cesar Chavez, Sr. and Ray Robinson. It's controversial to say around here, but I believe you can add Floyd Mayweather, Jr. to that list, too.

I don't know why boxing is like this. Only one team in the history of the NFL has finished with an undefeated season. No NBA, MLB or NHL teams have ever finished a season undefeated. Even somebody like Tiger Woods doesn't win every single tournament he's in. But in boxing, once you lose, your considered damaged goods/leftovers/shot/washed up, etc. No other professional sports have this mindset.

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. Or Salido, who took JuanMa's "zero" while having eleven losses and two draws on his own record. Some of these guys, including the ones you mentioned, are dangerous fighters that are written off by some because of the blemishes on their records. It's one of the benefits of being a serious fan; your understanding of the sport deepens.

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...

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.

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.

MMA is better than Boxing in that one simple aspect. Fighters aren't so easily disregarded by a loss.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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...

So what's your take on your own question? Why do people put so much on a loss? 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..

Being undefeated is an accomplishment no matter how you look at it!! Marciano ran out of quality opponents most think. Mayweathers career continued as it started with "cheery picking" opponents. Most young prospects are hand feed opponents to teach him how to win. Eventually the tests need to begin, usually with a slow footed guy who can take a punch. Then the same guy with a little hand speed. Lastly a guy with a little sock in him but eventually he needs a "live body"! If you take on contenders then move on to veterans on the down slide (ala Floyd) theres not much reality to it! Theres other undefeated fighters but until I see one that could box like Pep or fight like LaMotta I really don't care about it!! Ray.

i hate mma but a loss means nothing in that sport i think it should apply over to boxing as well but i doubt it'll ever happen. 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 mean it's not the end of the world,this is boxing and it can happen to anyone...I've seen some post of people talking about Khan..Yes he loss 3 fights..But the kid is young and can rebound if he takes his craft and opponents more seriously...It's like that with loads of fighters tho,if the fighter loses fans lose interest in the fighter...This is something I've never got,hell sometimes a loss is a good thing and a learning experience..What are some thoughts on this subject.... I think Khan is a bad AND a perfect example of the problem. When a fighter is brought up in his career and told everyday that he is the next biggest thing, they start putting the cart before the horse and looking 10 years ahead in the future. The promoters are a BIG part of the problem, as everything equates to $$$$ in their eyes. They stroke the fighters ego for years, so when a loss does come, the excuses start flying from both the promoter and the fighter. I think the fans appreciate a more humble and realistically honest fighters loss when they say "Hey, this is boxing and it can happen to anyone. So and so was better tonight and I give them full credit. I have to go back to the gym and fix my mistakes and come back stronger then before". But it's also about being humble and consistant even when they're WINNING. When Khan blamed everyone else BUT himself in the loss against Peterson (BEFORE anything came out about testosterone), he started by insulting the fans in Washington :nono: (in his post fight interview) and then proceeded to post pictures of who was ringside and the mysterious man with the black hat, etc. etc. .... it made a lot of people even more happy that he lost. It's hard to give a fighter like Khan the benefit of the doubt after the losses he has suffered because of the things he has said and done PRIOR to his losses. For example... Maidana and McCloskey both BEGGED for rematches and Khans answer was 'It's not neccessary because I would just K.O. them next time or beat them worse in a rematch.' But, when you hear the constant whining of why he should get a rematch with Garcia, and the near desperation of how badly he wants a second chance to correct the loss and prove to himself and the fans that he can do it - while it's admirable, he seems to find himself almost ENTITLED to a rematch, and yet giving a rematch to someone like Maidana (in a fight that nearly ended disasterously for Khan) was given no more deserving consideration then a flick of the shoulder and an egotistical chuckle. Hard to feel sorry for a guy like that after his downfall. YES, he has taken on some tough fights.... and then again there are also some fights he didn't take, citing an opponent not worthy of the $ they wanted. Let us not forget that both Maidana and Peterson were MANDATORY fights that the other camps had to fight tooth and nail to get made. Maidanas camp even had to go to purse bid and fortunately they won that bid, otherwise there was that possibility that we would have never seen that fight if it had been left to Team Khan to say their dubious 'They want too much money'. It's the fighters who put in the work, fight with their whole heart and soul, and are gracious both in winning and defeat, that are the ones who will never lose the respect and admiration of the fans - so long as they are always giving it their all. In those cases, respect from the fans is both earned and given.... before AND after their losses.