Why do you put so much on a loss?

I like a good scrap,period. The ESPN fights have been better and love the new NBC series. Helping fighters grow and creating stars through publicity is always good for the sport. While records are important...styles make fights as do good match-makers.We need better match-ups. It's easy to get excited about warriors doing battle in true 50/50 or 60/40 fights or even fights with truly live dogs that are good for betting. :boxing:

Totally agree with TS. There is nothing wrong with losing as no one is unbeatable. Some boxers with unbeaten records it seems is there claim to fame, but it shouldnt be, as boasting about an unbeaten record is to suggest you think you are unbeatable, but that cant be the case, cos no one is unbeatable. So unbeaten records count for zilch, as all the boxers considered the greatest are guys with losses. If you havent got a loss you arent great. To prove my point the greatest guy with an unbeaten record is probaby Marciano, or joe calzaghe, but they arent high ATGs now are they? Which proves the theory if you want to be great you have to have lost, otherwise you got out early or didnt do enough while you were fighting.

A loss can be a great thing for a fighter. I personally feel if you don't have a loss on your record, then you haven't been fighting stiff enough competition. Not many have ever been good enough to consistantly beat the best available contender each and every time out.

It's more about the way a fighter performs than it is about the loss itself. Cloud had lackluster performances against Campillo/B-Hop, and he suffers from inactivity. He also didn't look that great against Mack either. It's not that he has a loss, but his performances have made fans skeptical about him. Broner won a close fight (pretty sure I had Ponce winning though) and he's gone on to dominate future opposition. He might've lost in the public's perception that night, but on his record, he's still undefeated. One of my favorite fighters is Rosado, so I clearly don't have a problem with losses. If Cloud can successfully bounce back and show he's capable of developing his style, then it's all good.

There are a relatively small number of big Network TV opportunities for fighters every year. Those TV dates are everything if you want to make money. In the grand scheme of things, getting beaten isn't that big a deal. But in terms of having the edge on the many other fighters who're looking for those dates, it is.

The promotors saw what type of money Floyd made. The 0 means more money if you Can carry it High enough.

The culture I can see on this site is really stupid. So many people on here totally disregard a fighter just because of a loss. It just leads to fighters cherrypicking, and then we don't get the fights people want to see, as a loss seems like the end of the world. Some examples i've seen on here: Broner-PDL: A LOT of people saw a fight where PDL won. If you like Broner, so what? The least you can do is accept the fact an overwhelming amount of people saw it differently. Even if he lost, so what? Look where he's at now. Why is it such a bitter pill to swallow? Tavoris Cloud - i'm one of the biggest Cloud fans on this forum. I say he CLEARLY lost the Campillo fight. Not sure why Bradley/Broner fans can't accept it the same way. I guess you can come back and say oh those fights are different, but in reality, they aren't in most peoples eyes. Also with Cloud, after the Hopkins loss you see posts like "Cloud is finished, hes done". Seriously? He's a world class fighter who lost a couple of fights, so what? Pacquiao - obviously we have the Marquez KO. After that, apparently Keith Thurman and Broner can easily beat him now. This only goes to show the deluded thinking, and the heavy focus on defeat on this forum. It's a sport, you win and lose. Nowadays, so much focus is on winning that it's now acceptable to take all options necessary to fabricate that 0. Andre Ward - this is the extremes i've seen on the forum. This stems from the Bika fight - some posters on here genuinely say Bika should have won, and therefore Ward isn't all he's cracked up to be. I need not say more on this one. Fighters who go against the grain? Top example, Carl Froch. The guy will fight anyone. He's not mixed up within the financial world. He knows, if he does all he can, he'll be set for life, which he is. He's so well respected, that his losses are just accepted, and still he's a warrior of the sport. He doesn't make excuses, even for the Kessler fight which either could have won. He has even admitted he could have lost the Dirrell fight. People thought he was finished after the Ward fight. He only went on to disprove everyone. The best fighters in history, and even today have losses in their careers. But gradually, we'll get to a point where you won't get a title unless you have a 0, and noone will fight eachother. It's pathetic, and needs to change asap. So what's everyones excuses? I think stock is put in a loss because of the fact that most fighters dont adapt their style(they spend to0 much of their career cherrypicking). The way that they lose is usally the blueprint to beat them unless its a suprise ko.

Honestly, I think it's because of Floyd Mayweather, real talk. This guy came along putting sooo much emphasis on dat undefeated record & his fans, (which) are many. incorporated it into everyday boxing discussion, now it's the norm. I agree. And its changed the way promoters think too. They try to protect the 0's on their fighters records to make them more marketable. That's why you see corrupt judging and certain fights not being made.

Honestly, I think it's because of Floyd Mayweather, real talk. This guy came along putting sooo much emphasis on dat undefeated record & his fans, (which) are many. incorporated it into everyday boxing discussion, now it's the norm.

Haters use it to fuel and add weight to their arguments. Personally I don't mind losses as long as they're not in brutal fashion or to an opponent with a horrible record. Unfortunately, promoters and networks paint a picture for casuals and they promote it as being the end all be all. So now people love to see a perfect record, I remember when Pac got KO'd everyone and their mom had a Pac KO pic on their social media. None of them knew he got KO'd before they thought this was his first time.

There is no shame in losing a good scrap,period.As a fan, I pay money to see good entertaining scraps/wars. I appreciate the finer skills of the boxer too. I do not appreciate when dudes like Cloud have titles by being one dimensional and do not "mix it up." Just being plodding is not enough vs good opponents. If Broner should lose moving up to 147...no big deal,he took the chance...Pacman lost by KO to JMM in a great fight and I for one can't wait to see Pac-JMM V. A good fight is a good fight,period. Come to fight fellas and bring the noise in the ring. :boxing:

I think theres way too much emphasis on keeping the 0 on a record. Its crap to me its about your competition not your record only if you're undefeated against crap competition it means nothing. I think its more of a marketing thing to appeal to casual fans now as something a fighter can brag about. Some great fighters in the past were really proven after a loss when they redeem themselves and beat the guy they lost to I think that adds more to your career than an undefeated record in some ways