The Prospect are shinning and looking VERY promising, but will we still support if...

[2501]

They get a loss? Will we just toss them aside because they no longer have an undefeated record or another loss added to it?

Thats one of the biggest problems boxing faces currently. Promoters overly use the "undeafeated" aspect to promote and market their prize fighters rather than market and promote their ability and talent.

I think fighters should be marketed this way..

"So and So is exciting and has this much talent, which is why he is undefeated"

rather than

"So and so is undefeated because he is exciting and has so much talent"

When a fighter who is being sold as "undefeated" losses, they lose the main promotional tool which made them marketable. If a fighter is promoted as exciting and skillfull above their record, if they lose, the marketing aspect is still there.

[Live Dog]

I don't know any prospects who are being advertised solely on their undefeated record.

[x-PeROxiDE-x]

I don't know any prospects who are being advertised solely on their undefeated record.

I know they are not prospects, but Mayweather vs Hatton was called "Undefeated".

While this generates interest for that fight, in the long run, it harms the sport as it makes it look like you have to be undefeated to be taken seriously.

I think that's the point 2501 is trying to make.

[2501]

I know they are not prospects, but Mayweather vs Hatton was called "Undefeated".

While this generates interest for that fight, in the long run, it harms the sport as it makes it look like you have to be undefeated to be taken seriously.

I think that's the point 2501 is trying to make.

something to that effect. take MMA for example, you wont find any undefeated stars and thats because the fighter's ability to be exciting is marketed more than a padded record so to speak. Of course, im not saying someone with 11 losses should be promoted as one of boxing's best, but if the right fighters who posses the talent and skillset are marketed for their abilities while not concentrating so much on their records, that could only help the sport grow.

[GTL]

Me personally, Hell yea I'd support them.. Every1 loses sometimes..
If I like their style I'd continue to support them..

Some promising prospects
Gamboa
Linares (Pretty Polished)
Matrosynian (spelling)
Dirrell
Andre Ward
Berto (Defense needs work)

I am NOT sold on Amir Khan yet..

[RichCCFC]

Andy Lee will be back soon.

[The_Italian]

They get a loss? Will we just toss them aside because they no longer have an undefeated record or another loss added to it?

Thats one of the biggest problems boxing faces currently. Promoters overly use the "undeafeated" aspect to promote and market their prize fighters rather than market and promote their ability and talent.

I think fighters should be marketed this way..

"So and So is exciting and has this much talent, which is why he is undefeated"

rather than

"So and so is undefeated because he is exciting and has so much talent"

When a fighter who is being sold as "undefeated" losses, they lose the main promotional tool which made them marketable. If a fighter is promoted as exciting and skillfull above their record, if they lose, the marketing aspect is still there.

I think it has a lot to do with the fans of boxing as well.

Many view someone as a top prospect until they lose...then from there i think they get written off as never being able to get above the "B-level"...especially if that loss came to a b-level fighter or if the loss came from a decent fighter of the past who has either fallen off or fallen out of his prime.

I think today too much is put into a loss even at the elite level.

People count out Taylor now because of his two losses to pavlik saying, "taylor was exposed; he's no good" when the truth is he was just matched against someone better than him...it happens...it doesnt mean he's still not a top level fighter...i mean he made what? 8 defenses or so of the middleweight title that he recieved after beating hopkins...twice...

fighters lose fights...i mean not everyone can be undefeated...they just cant.

I can hear it now if cotto loses to margarito, "cotto was exposed; etc." when that wont be the case.

in the older days of the sport not this much crticism was placed in a loss and i for one think that people need to view it like that...a loss is a loss...not the end of a career.

[Live Dog]

Andy Lee will be back soon.

I don't know about that, Vera is a pretty bad loss.

[Left2body]

It really depends on the fighter. A prospect who was defense oriented and not exciting for casual fans would find it a lot harder to recover from a loss than a more exciting fighter.

Juan Diaz, Berto, Kirkland, Joel Julio all have styles that would keep them popular even after losses.

[MANGLER]

Anytime a prospect loses he's 'exposed' or 'overrated'. People always **** on rising stars when they fail for the first time.