Why in today's boxing, only 1 defeat is a career ender

I can use your example to refute what you are saying. Look at Canelo, lost to Floyd but is headlining the second biggest PPV of the year and is going to make 10 mil plus. THE FANS may claim he was exposed bout how is it a "career ender" when you are back headlining events and making millions of dollars. Look at Lucas, Broner, Froch, Degale, Porter, hell look at PAULIE. Multiple losses but still making good money. I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. What you said and what you are claiming are two different things. I'm not claiming anything. I'm just going off what folks have said in response of fighters being labeled as exposed or done after just receiving one loss. You're taking what I wrote out of context. I never said a fighter is done after one loss, I said that's what folks are saying nowadays.

For the last few years I've noticed that once a fighter loses for the first time, all of sudden he is exposed and done for. Really? When did this become the standard? Prime example is Canelo Alvarez. When Floyd beat him everybody was saying he was exposed and no good. The kid wasn't even 25 when he fought against the best boxer in the world. Can some of you guys on here let me know what you think. I can use your example to refute what you are saying. Look at Canelo, lost to Floyd but is headlining the second biggest PPV of the year and is going to make 10 mil plus. THE FANS may claim he was exposed bout how is it a "career ender" when you are back headlining events and making millions of dollars. Look at Lucas, Broner, Froch, Degale, Porter, hell look at PAULIE. Multiple losses but still making good money. I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. What you said and what you are claiming are two different things.

cause of a alot of dumb ass fans on here wanna be calling these dude that have never been tested the greatest of any era so when you seee them lose those fans commit suicide and there stock plummets that's all a lost don't mean nothing.

If I could change one thing in boxing, it would be this. As others have said, being afraid to lose means you won't take on good competition, which means we don't get to see great matchups. I wish more guys were willing to challenge themselves.

For the last few years I've noticed that once a fighter loses for the first time, all of sudden he is exposed and done for. Really? When did this become the standard? Prime example is Canelo Alvarez. When Floyd beat him everybody was saying he was exposed and no good. The kid wasn't even 25 when he fought against the best boxer in the world. Can some of you guys on here let me know what you think. In the fans eyes, you may be right but in reality, it's not true at all, unless a fighter loses at a very early stage in his career and never manages to rebound. Manny Pacquiao was one of the most popular fighters on the planet for over a decade, still is and he has several losses on his record. Khan, for all his hate, has enduring popularity on both sides of the pond, gaining millions of viewers and millions of dollars, yet he lost when first stepping up from British/Commonwealth level. Yet he managed to carve out the best modern day LWW resume and still is a name at welterweight. So, a loss isn't all doom and gloom, as long as fighters can rebound, no matter what the fans say.

because everyone thinks they are floyd

I agree but I think with Mexicn fighters like Canelo it's different, Canelo got outclassed and then almost lost again to Lara but his fans have been very loyal to him and now he got another chance to fight for the biggest payday of his career, not necessarily because of his talent or accomplishments in the ring, but mainly due to his huge fans base in Mexico, Mexican fans are very loyal man, they support their fighters no matter what. American fans however don't know what loyality means in boxing nowadays, once u lose u r a bum that just got exposed, American fans give foreign fighters chances but when the American fighter loses he's written off completely, that's just the way it is. great post great thread!!!!

It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it matters how you fought. It also matters who and when. Broner's loss to Maidana, while he did get beat up, he did show a lot of heart and fought his way back into the fight. If Broner was a chump, he would have quit or got stopped. He actually showed more in defeat than his cherry pick wins. Floyd robbed him of a rematch (which I wanted to see). But the Porter loss, Broner barely tried. One of my favorite fighters is Provodnikov, I don't care how many losses he has. I will always tune in for his fights.

Why? Because undefeated fighters in their prime don't fight each other, and because we have 4 belt for every weight class and this is a bullSh*t Undefeated fighters MUST face each other in their prime and there MUST be 1 world champion and 1 belt for every weight division

Mostly because top fighters fight less often.

It depends on the type of loss. A close defeat to a top fighter? They'll live. But a brutal KO to a fringe contender nobody heard of? That could be hard to overcome if you're marketed as the next big thing. People are still bringing up Prescott when they talk about Khan.

Because casual fans feel like boxers need to remain with their 0 aka the Floyd fan brigade.

It seems to be the norm on here unfortunately. A fighter loses a fight and suddenly he's been 'exposed'. If BoxingScene was around back in the day, Ali, SSR, Leonard and Duran would all of been 'exposed' apparently. And therefore not worthy of any big future fights. ''Anyone want to see Benitez Vs Duran?''...''Nah, Benitez got Leonard problems''. Maybe fighters feel they need to remain un-beaten to be the 'A side' and attract the PPV numbers. It's not the best news for fans though as the more the emphasis is put on the '0', then the more likelihood that fighters won't take the competitive fights.

For the last few years I've noticed that once a fighter loses for the first time, all of sudden he is exposed and done for. Really? When did this become the standard? Prime example is Canelo Alvarez. When Floyd beat him everybody was saying he was exposed and no good. The kid wasn't even 25 when he fought against the best boxer in the world. Can some of you guys on here let me know what you think. I don't think that's true now or ever. There may be a few fans who think that but it's rare to be undefeated for long. And undefeated does not mean that the fighter is the best in the world. Joe Gans, Willie Pep, Hank Armstrong, SRR, Ali all had defeats.

That's just how some idiots think, a loss doesn't actually kill anyone's career. Fighters with losses are always coming back. Alvarez's career hasn't gone down since he lost. If anything he's bigger now. Adrien Broner is the definition of a true exposed hype job and he is still selling tickets and getting title shots. A dozen posters on NSB isn't the entire boxing culture. Some people here may be desperate to write off someone who loses as a hype job who sucks but it doesn't usually matter to a fighter's ability to earn and be a success.

For the last few years I've noticed that once a fighter loses for the first time, all of sudden he is exposed and done for. Really? When did this become the standard? Prime example is Canelo Alvarez. When Floyd beat him everybody was saying he was exposed and no good. The kid wasn't even 25 when he fought against the best boxer in the world. Can some of you guys on here let me know what you think. Losses have always been setbacks. But fighters used to fight more often so they could redeem themselves faster. When you fight 2x per year and lose once, it could take years to get back to the level you were at.

Thats nuts. If you don't think GGG is gonna be called a bum if he loses to Lemieux you are fooling yourself. And Lemieux will definitely be getting called a bum & told he should retire if he loses. He did say "going away", it will take boxing some time to get rid of this flawed mentality which costs fans good fights.

It depends on whom they lose to. Look at Carl Froch: he lost to Kessler and Ward, but went on to have a successful career. If someone fights the best, and gives a good account for themselves, people will accept that they lost to a top class fighter and move on. It is also about marketing the fighters accordingly. Let us take a look at Adrien Broner: he was marketed as the next Mayweather, but he went on to get his ass ripped by Marcos Maidana; that is what you call unfulfilled expectations. If he was marketed accordingly, people would see him as a guy who put on a spirited performance as opposed to someone who did not live up to the hype. I don't think Canelo is a prime example. Not much has really changed for him.

unfortunately, one of the negative aspects Floyd has introduced to the sport is this idea that if you have lost you are damaged goods and not worthy of respect. However if you are a real fan of the sport you would know that this concept is about garbage.

He was overhyped to begin with. Floyd fans hyped him up knowing it was an easy victory coming. He was young and green and his biggest wins were vs two 140 pounders in josesito lopez and alfonzo gomez at 154. Trought was a controversial fight in twxas that most think trout won. His mexican heritage got him the fight. Erm.....Floyd fans weren't the ones claiming he was scared of, and would duck Canelo