Obsessed with the '0'

[Mugwump]

Following on from the thread about great boxers with a large number of defeats on their record - precisely when did the sport of boxing become obsessed with fighters with ZERO losses?

Time and time again these days I hear young fight fans going into ****** over some fighter or another with an unbeaten record and yet half a century ago fighters at the very top of the tree were no strangers to defeat. Indeed, many seemed to think only in defeat could a fighter discover his weaknesses and put them right.

So how did we get from then to now? Was it a gradual change? Did some fighter in particular emphasise the importance of being undefeated? Or was it simply down to the multiplication of belts?

Why is a defeat so damaging to a fighter's credibility these days when back then you had people like George Chuvalo seemingly getting beat every other week and still remaining in the top-10 for years?

[kendom]

Following on from the thread about great boxers with a large number of defeats on their record - precisely when did the sport of boxing become obsessed with fighters with ZERO losses?

Time and time again these days I hear young fight fans going into ****** over some fighter or another with an unbeaten record and yet half a century ago fighters at the very top of the tree were no strangers to defeat. Indeed, many seemed to think only in defeat could a fighter discover his weaknesses and put them right.

So how did we get from then to now? Was it a gradual change? Did some fighter in particular emphasise the importance of being undefeated? Or was it simply down to the multiplication of belts?

Why is a defeat so damaging to a fighter's credibility these days when back then you had people like George Chuvalo seemingly getting beat every other week and still remaining in the top-10 for years?

It all started when boxing became more televised, promoters started to get more control of the sport. An undefeated record is very marketable and makes for good pay-per views and lots of money, unfortunately an undefeated record usually either means invincible or weak competition, which is why so many fighters today have padded records, building up nice KO ratios that look good on paper. So many kids my age then see this as normal, and a lot of stigma created is from a loss, that's why you always see them insulting old fighters records "What these old guy cant be that good, he had like 25 losses!".

[BigStereotype]

It all started when boxing became more televised, promoters started to get more control of the sport. An undefeated record is very marketable and makes for good pay-per views and lots of money, unfortunately an undefeated record usually either means invincible or weak competition, which is why so many fighters today have padded records, building up nice KO ratios that look good on paper. So many kids my age then see this as normal, and a lot of stigma created is from a loss, that's why you always see them insulting old fighters records "What these old guy cant be that good, he had like 25 losses!".

That's exactly true. I'm a pretty recent follower of the sport and I have to fight my instinct to dismiss a fighter after a loss. I know that it's unreasonable but I've been conditioned to think that a loss means that you're trash.

[The MiZ]

Mayweathers unbeaten, if he got to 50-0, he would be top 10 ATG.

[BigStereotype]

Mayweathers unbeaten, if he got to 50-0, he would be top 10 ATG.

Why?..........

[The MiZ]

Why?..........

IMO. He will have to first beat Ortiz, Pacquaio, Khan, Alverez, and some other top guys who are ranked high at 147. He can beat top guys at 154 too. I wish he would prove me right.

[Mugwump]

I'll never forget Ian Darke and Jim Watt all but writing off Amir Khan's career when he was starched by Prescott. I couldn't believe my ears. The kid hadn't even matured into a fully grown man and yet they seemed confident in their implied suggestion that he'd never amount to anything special.

[BigStereotype]

IMO. He will have to first beat Ortiz, Pacquaio, Khan, Alverez, and some other top guys who are ranked high at 147. He can beat top guys at 154 too. I wish he would prove me right.

Pacquiao is the only name on that list worth a damn in a historical sense.

[Mugwump]

Mayweathers unbeaten, if he got to 50-0, he would be top 10 ATG.

What's so great about Mayweather's resume? Granted, he possesses extraordinary gifts and he's done well to pick up belts at multiple weights. But precisely WHO has he beaten?

Call me crazy but in order to be ranked in the top 10 ATG category surely you must have to beat ATG fighters?

[The MiZ]

Pacquiao is the only name on that list worth a damn in a historical sense.

Pacquaio, Martinez would boost him up the ATG rankings. If only they HAD to fight these people.