Do you prefer to follow top boxers with losses

I like to watch unbeaten fighters who don't cherry pick and pay off judges.

If I like a fighters character I will support them 'Some of them may be dominant fighters, some may be struggling'. David Price is a fighter who, interests me more than lets say? Teofimo Lopez 'I am not sure why match-room is not throwing Price some fights'. The last real fighter I had a deep rapport with was also David Haye. His two fights with Tony Bellew, were the last real fights that I was heavily invested in 'I am still bothered that Tony Bellew beat David Haye'. Haye should of retired after the first Bellew fight, even in a losing performance 'He won the admiration of real boxing fans, with his display of bravery fighting on while injured'. Note: I am well aware that Price may not challenge the big boys of the division, but he has battled on through his career 'He has been open and honest, he has not turned away from resistance'.

I follow boxers with no losses to doubt digit L's. It's all about strength of schedule. That said if you've never heard of a guy with L's & don't see noticable names on his resume or some split decisions the winning bet far more often than not is he's not worth following now & won't be in the future. Glen Johnson comes to mind.

Weird question. I follow and watch top boxers regardless of their wins or losses. As everyone knows a loss isn't the end of the world, being undefeated also doesn't mean weak resume. Okay. What do you think of a fighter like Sven Ottke? He was a top ranked fighter with an undefeated record.

Badou Jack comes to mind.

I like watching good Boxers in good fights. Good Boxers lose and there are some great fights involving fighters with losses on their records. Its impressive when you can go through your career unbeaten and have a resume to brag about, Mayweather and Calzaghe are perfect examples of it. But it's not overly important to me as a fan of the sport and competitive fights.

I feel like losses usually say a fighter is tested. This isn’t always the case. It’s rare for an undefeated fighter to have a good/decent resume. Mayweather, Calzaghe, Marciano are exceptions. But usually 0’s mean you haven’t fought anyone who is considered a very good boxer. Tyson Fury is another boxer who is undefeated and actually has a good resume. But I like watching guys who has losses though. Like Canelo, Joshua, Wilder, Lomachenko, but have shown they can beat elites. Wilder hasn't fought since getting walloped.

Yea I'm with this. The most fun guys are the guys who've seen evolve & grow & got ups & downs like a rollercoaster in their career. Arturo Gatti might be the quintessential guy like that, but there are lots of them out that from local to world levels. Those are the best stories in boxing to me. Randomly this makes me think of that Kirino Garcia cat who lost his first ~18 fights or some sh^t like that & ended up turning it all around to have a winning record & having several TV fights in the 90s. That takes a bad ass mfer with steel resolve to accomplish something like that. Respect to Kirino. Cornelius Bundrage is like that for me. After that classic fight with Sechew Powell featuring the rare double knockdown, I didn't think we would be seeing that guy again. Nevermind seeing him as a two-time 154 pound IBF titlist!

I could give a sh^t about fighter taking a Lose, all my favorite fighters of all times too Loses and went on to become LEGENDS and ICONS in this sport I can understand why Millennials and Generation Z are overly sensitive though especially since they're the ones on Social Medial All Day. I think Fighters today are terrified to take Risk out of fear of going Viral or having to accept harsh Criticism when they suffer defeat

I don't follow boxers. I follow boxing. Not as hardcore as I used to though. Like 20 years ago I would never miss Shobox, Telefutura, ESPN WNF/FNF type cards. These days, I don't tune in for those kind of shows. I must admit, my passion lies with beer these days. Honestly, these current guys taking the Mayweather route without putting the work in to earn that status isn't helping to reignite my love for boxing. It feels like we discuss the business of boxing more than the actual fights these days. $port$ in general.

I don't fuck with anybody that doesn't have at least nine losses. Yori Boy Campas FTW :boxing:

losses don't matter IMO. It's how you respond from a loss. Hell, most decision losses are up for debate recently anyways.

I dont have a preference. I just like highly skilled guys that go out and try to fight the best. Lomachenko and Chocolatito have multiple losses and are two of my favorites.. I also love Inoue and Teofimo who have no losses. All the top welterweights are wack to me regardless if they have losses or not.

I don't. After a few losses, I lose interest. Also, undefeated doesn't mean a weak resume. It's case by case.

Weird question. I follow and watch top boxers regardless of their wins or losses. As everyone knows a loss isn't the end of the world, being undefeated also doesn't mean weak resume. My thoughts exactly. Above all I'm always on the lookout for skillfull fighters and/or good fights.

If people are only fans of fighters with 0 losses, theyre not true fans of the sport. PERIOD.

What I want is two beasts go at it, skills, power, speed. That’s it. High level fights.

Weird question. I follow and watch top boxers regardless of their wins or losses. As everyone knows a loss isn't the end of the world, being undefeated also doesn't mean weak resume.

Not one of the deciding factors.

I'd say I do , right now one of the fighters i'm most looking forward to coming back from defeat is Verdejo . He had a great interview on the deplaymaker Youtube channel , if he ever puts it all together and finally gets over the hump to win a World Title it'll be very satisfying to watch . This. He is my favorite fighter at 135....