Boxing emphasised too much on a loss

[Dorian]

I agree with you

[Bhopreign]

that really has to do more with HOW a fight, fighter and boxing is promoted. MMA has the flimsiest, most uneducated fans, yet their most famous fighters usually have more than 3 loses on their records. they market their fighters as EXCITING products rather than undefeated phenoms. of course though, there has to be a balance between "exciting" and "good". we just cant have arturo gatti type fighters being the face of the sport because boxing is just more than that, but i think it would do the sport well if promoters emphasized more on quality.

I agree its more on how the fight is lost. Its just a sad thing. I think MMA is as popular and losses maybe not matter and those fighters appeal to more people because the average fan just about thinks he can step in those rings and give it a shot, boxing isnt the same as it is way more skill involved. So many different styles of fighting in MMA which adds to more intrique of how a fight will play out.

[slickPUG]

I agree. Today, if a young fighter loses a fight or two, he's "all done", or if he has 2 or 3 tough fights, he's "shopworn"...Years ago, it was common to see fighters with 80 or 90 pro fights, &having lots of wars &still being part of the elite fighters.

[Clegg]

In the days when it was common for the best fighters to have defeats on their records boxers were a lot more active and so the defeat didn't linger as long in the memory. After losing to LaMotta, SRR beat him in a re-match only 3 weeks later. That just wouldn't happen nowadays.

Quite a few modern world champions have retired after less than 50 fights, never mind 100. Nowadays there is more anticipation, hype and pre-fight focus, so the defeat has more meaning, as every fight is billed as the most important thing ever.

Fighters are more protected now, and so Hatton's defeat hurt his reputation a lot because people could say "well he never really beat a top in-their-prime-fighter in the first place". Sugar Ray Robinson's (and others) defeats didn't matter that much because he proved his quality in so many other fights.

I'd also say that when the defeat takes place matters. Mayorga and Pac both had early defeats but they didn't matter once they became big names because no-one had seen them (unlike in a big PPV fight, where people can visually remember a fighter getting beat. For example most people haven't seen the early Margarito defeats, but there can't be many boxing fans who didn't see Hatton getting beat. I must've seen that clip about 20 times) and it's accepted that they weren't the finished article. On the other hand lots of fans will have seen Williams, Diaz etc. lose coupled with the fact that they were world champions and considered to be in their prime years, so losing at that point of your career means a lot more.

Someone mentioned Gatti, who is an example of how you can still be popular, respected, make good money and get a title shot when you're a few years past your best despite several defeats.

Not saying I don't agree at all, but I don't think having a loss on your record is that big of a deal, particularly when you consider that Hopkins was considered p4p#1, and he lost his first fight.

[Bhopreign]

In the days when it was common for the best fighters to have defeats on their records boxers were a lot more active and so the defeat didn't linger as long in the memory. After losing to LaMotta, SRR beat him in a re-match only 3 weeks later. That just wouldn't happen nowadays.

Quite a few modern world champions have retired after less than 50 fights, never mind 100. Nowadays there is more anticipation, hype and pre-fight focus, so the defeat has more meaning, as every fight is billed as the most important thing ever.

Fighters are more protected now, and so Hatton's defeat hurt his reputation a lot because people could say "well he never really beat a top in-their-prime-fighter in the first place". Sugar Ray Robinson's (and others) defeats didn't matter that much because he proved his quality in so many other fights.

I'd also say that when the defeat takes place matters. Mayorga and Pac both had early defeats but they didn't matter once they became big names because no-one had seen them (unlike in a big PPV fight, where people can visually remember a fighter getting beat. For example most people haven't seen the early Margarito defeats, but there can't be many boxing fans who didn't see Hatton getting beat. I must've seen that clip about 20 times) and it's accepted that they weren't the finished article. On the other hand lots of fans will have seen Williams, Diaz etc. lose coupled with the fact that they were world champions and considered to be in their prime years, so losing at that point of your career means a lot more.

Someone mentioned Gatti, who is an example of how you can still be popular, respected, make good money and get a title shot when you're a few years past your best despite several defeats.

Not saying I don't agree at all, but I don't think having a loss on your record is that big of a deal, particularly when you consider that Hopkins was considered p4p#1, and he lost his first fight.

I was about to say something like this as far as fighters back then fought more and the impression a loss left could be erased alot sooner.

[MELLY-MEL...]

winning is not everything, it's the only thing!

[Scott9945]

Hatton was the main one that people were trying to claim was "exposed."

I think all three still have the ability to suprise us all.

Yes, Hatton is a good example. One loss to the best fighter in the world and now he's regarded as second rate.