Why do we write off fighters who loose the 0

[Williamb45]

We all want the best fighters to fight each other, but as soon as one of them looses, they become yesterdays news. It seems to me that we are punishing the fighters who take chances and give the fans the fights they want to see, yet rewarding the fighters who fight handpicked opponents and keep their undefeated records.

Before the calzaghe fight, Lacy was on peoples avitars, many people were singing his praises. As soon as he lost everyone started talking **** about him. He could have not faced calzaghe and continued fighting bums and would have been much more popular.

Another example is Miranda before the pavlik fight. Slowly everyone is taking him off their avitars and not talking about him anymore. I for one respect him for willing to take on all comers, and will continue watching him with more exitement than I would Taylor.

Then on the other hand people who handpick opponents like Hatton, Calzaghe, PBF (for the most part)....... get the spotlight while the fighters who do what we want them to do fade in the background.

It's not fair, and we are to blame for having good fighters hesitant to fight other good fighters in fear of loosing (not the fight, but their popularity).

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

It's a mental thing. Similiar to how stores sell things for .99 cents instead of just saying $1.00 dollar. It just seems cheaper mentally when looking at .99

The same can be said for a fighter. We see a guy with a few losses on his record and he is placed as the underdog before he even steps in the ring with a decent undefeated fighter. Unless he's an elite fighter with a loss or two on the record.

[Williamb45]

MMA fans are better than boxing fans reguarding this topic.

[fatpom]

Er...Miranda didn't have an "0" going into the pavlik fight.


The major reason one loss is so much more damaging to a fighters rep these days as opposed to the past is because how careful so many fighters are in protecting the 0.

Fighters who just go out & fight everyone like a Morales or a DLH don't get written off from one loss.
Fighters who pad their records and are light on big names, when they do fight someone finally and lose. It pretty much kills them. Because the "0" is really all they have.

[jamesbrown]

We all want the best fighters to fight each other, but as soon as one of them looses, they become yesterdays news. It seems to me that we are punishing the fighters who take chances and give the fans the fights they want to see, yet rewarding the fighters who fight handpicked opponents and keep their undefeated records.

Before the calzaghe fight, Lacy was on peoples avitars, many people were singing his praises. As soon as he lost everyone started talking **** about him. He could have not faced calzaghe and continued fighting bums and would have been much more popular.

Another example is Miranda before the pavlik fight. Slowly everyone is taking him off their avitars and not talking about him anymore. I for one respect him for willing to take on all comers, and will continue watching him with more exitement than I would Taylor.

Then on the other hand people who handpick opponents like Hatton, Calzaghe, PBF (for the most part)....... get the spotlight while the fighters who do what we want them to do fade in the background.

It's not fair, and we are to blame for having good fighters hesitant to fight other good fighters in fear of loosing (not the fight, but their popularity).

I would guess its has a lot to do with the pretenders that they protect getting big and then exposed it's hard to tell the difference it's all about being no. 1 no2,3,4 don't matter in sports...

don't put pbf in the same sentence as hatton in regards.... anything til he mans up and fights him and quit yapping noise... miranda will be back but they will start to hand pick his oppents for his next 2-3 fights probably

[Williamb45]

Er...Miranda didn't have an "0" going into the pavlik fight.


The major reason one loss is so much more damaging to a fighters rep these days as opposed to the past is because how careful so many fighters are in protecting the 0.

Fighters who just go out & fight everyone like a Morales or a DLH don't get written off from one loss.
Fighters who pad their records and are light on big names, when they do fight someone finally and lose. It pretty much kills them. Because the "0" is really all they have.

According to most he did have a "0". Morales and DLH were competitive in most of their losses. Morales was written off after his loss to Zahir (I think that was his name). Vargas lost the spotlight after the Tito fight, and labeled shot fighter after DLH. He put up a good fight VS Mosly the first time around and it was a close fight before they stopped it. Mosly is considered a top WW now.

[Williamb45]

Clottey would have been 5X as popular as he is now, if he didn't have those 2 losses on his record.

[fatpom]

According to most he did have a "0". Morales and DLH were competitive in most of their losses. Morales was written off after his loss to Zahir (I think that was his name). Vargas lost the spotlight after the Tito fight, and labeled shot fighter after DLH. He put up a good fight VS Mosly the first time around and it was a close fight before they stopped it. Mosly is considered a top WW now.

So its less about the 'o' than it is about the performace you give. And if you're losing without being competitive, is it such a stretch to write a guy off? I don't think so.

Vargas was NOT written off after the Tito fight. He was written off after the DLH fight. Which was he 2nd devastating loss to top flight opposition. It was proof he was a step below the elite and he hasn't looked good since. And getting beat up twice by a guy half his size & who most considered on the slide himself doesn' help your argument.

Same with Morales, I don't think he was written off after the Raheem fight, but even if I conceed he was. It was because he looked like **** and hasn't won since. So writing him off was proven to be correct.

[jamesbrown]

Clottey would have been 5X as popular as he is now, if he didn't have those 2 losses on his record.

i think it has to do with the fact he is from africa in all honesty think about ike quartey wasn't he undefeated till... oscar??? he wasn't that popular if he was black from da hood/white/mexican/p-rica he would be alot bigger over here but he not from a hot spot of boxing a pretty poor nation to i believe... being undefeated wouldn't hurt he has my favorite "stable" style of fighting in boxing

[Williamb45]

So its less about the 'o' than it is about the performace you give. And if you're losing without being competitive, is it such a stretch to write a guy off? I don't think so.

Vargas was NOT written off after the Tito fight. He was written off after the DLH fight. Which was he 2nd devastating loss to top flight opposition. It was proof he was a step below the elite and he hasn't looked good since. And getting beat up twice by a guy half his size & who most considered on the slide himself doesn' help your argument.

Same with Morales, I don't think he was written off after the Raheem fight, but even if I conceed he was. It was because he looked like **** and hasn't won since. So writing him off was proven to be correct.

But if they chose not to fight the top opposition, they wouldn't lose without being competitive. And Mosly wasn't on the slide, he easily beat a guy who Hatton struggled with. Also Mosly is believed by many to have the best chance at beating the P4P king.