People concentrate way too much on losses

[abadger]

but the promoters are dumb. no one actually gives a damn about an undefeated nobody. they would much rather see someone like Emmanuel Augustus, who has tons of losses but everyone is familiar with him and he always puts on a show.

I sure as hell dont care about undefeated fighters, and I doubt that many people really give a damn about them either if theyve never heard of them/seen them before.

I think it really counts most on the way up. If you have a young undefeated guy then you can market him as a superstar, the next big thing in boxing, even if he hasn't faced anyone good, or at least anyone likely to beat him. Cotto is the best recent example. I think once that first L happens though, and the fighter gets on with their career then in most cases it doesn't matter too much. Nearly every 'elite' boxer has losses and a good career both. I think avoiding it at frst is about trying to build up as big a fanbase and as much exposure as possible so that when the L comes and the casual fans choose a new golden boy, the fighter still has a solid following to fall back on.

[Guest]

I've noticed that people on here that dwell on losses rather than a boxer's inherent ability and his chances against certain opponents, tend to be the boxrec warrior types who haven't seen the fighter fight, or haven't seen the controversial loss, etc. or having been watching boxing less than 5/10 years.

[abadger]

I've noticed that people on here that dwell on losses rather than a boxer's inherent ability and his chances against certain opponents, tend to be the boxrec warrior types who haven't seen the fighter fight, or haven't seen the controversial loss, etc. or having been watching boxing less than 5/10 years.

I agree.....

Oh yeah, apart from the 5-10 years part. I managed 18 months or as a serious fan and since I have eyes and a brain I feel I'm capable of forming reasonable opinions.

[Steak]

I've noticed that people on here that dwell on losses rather than a boxer's inherent ability and his chances against certain opponents, tend to be the boxrec warrior types who haven't seen the fighter fight, or haven't seen the controversial loss, etc. or having been watching boxing less than 5/10 years.

Ive been watching boxing for only about 2 years, and quite honestly I dont think its necessary to watch it 5-10 years to understand a certain fighter.
besides, all boxing fans need to start somewhere, so I dont think theres anything wrong being a newbie.

boxrec guys who havent actually seen the fighter are the ones that are irritating.

[Guest]

Ive been watching boxing for only about 2 years, and quite honestly I dont think its necessary to watch it 5-10 years to understand a certain fighter.
besides, all boxing fans need to start somewhere, so I dont think theres anything wrong being a newbie.

boxrec guys who havent actually seen the fighter are the ones that are irritating.

Fair enough on the 2 years whatever. I just can't see sometimes how you can possibly see as many fights, the build up to the fights as they are happening etc to accurately judge everything that went on and who was a player in the division etc. That dynamic can't always be replaced by tapes of a fight, or clips and not full rounds of a fight as they happen.

I mostly dislike the boxrec as a crutch thing. For examples, the Margarito-Santos fight. I watched it live and it was close, and Margarito was coming on late and people act like Santos beat the tar out of him which isn't true.
Santos was winning sure but it was a tight fight . Also, people pooh-poohed Santos because he got ko'ed early by Jantuah, but he was a **** of a fighter and always has been and any dummy who saw him before those fights knows that.

Just so many examples is all. If you just watched James Toney Michael Nunn round 9 you would think Nunn ****** and was weak chinned.
etc etc

[kenso]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to blackirish137 again

[Guest]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to blackirish137 again

You're only 19, so you couldn't have been watching boxing for 20 years

[Steak]

Fair enough on the 2 years whatever. I just can't see sometimes how you can possibly see as many fights, the build up to the fights as they are happening etc to accurately judge everything that went on and who was a player in the division etc. That dynamic can't always be replaced by tapes of a fight, or clips and not full rounds of a fight as they happen.

I mostly dislike the boxrec as a crutch thing. For examples, the Margarito-Santos fight. I watched it live and it was close, and Margarito was coming on late and people act like Santos beat the tar out of him which isn't true.
Santos was winning sure but it was a tight fight . Also, people pooh-poohed Santos because he got ko'ed early by Jantuah, but he was a **** of a fighter and always has been and any dummy who saw him before those fights knows that.

Just so many examples is all. If you just watched James Toney Michael Nunn round 9 you would think Nunn ****** and was weak chinned.
etc etc

I agree with everything you said completely. the first part makes it really hard for me, haha. I feel like I should know everyone in the division at the time before I can judge a fighter in that division at a certain time, which makes it next to impossible for me to understand fighters from the 60s and before...which is why I dont really try to judge them.

both the Santos and Nunn examples are good too. always irritated me when people brought those kind of things up.

[Guest]

I agree with everything you said completely. the first part makes it really hard for me, haha. I feel like I should know everyone in the division at the time before I can judge a fighter in that division at a certain time, which makes it next to impossible for me to understand fighters from the 60s and before...which is why I dont really try to judge them.

both the Santos and Nunn examples are good too. always irritated me when people brought those kind of things up.

Fair enough.
I was thinking Jim Lampley has been watching boxing forever, and he still misses a ton of stuff in fights.

I guess that's what makes this a unique sport to debate about.
People's eyes are different unlike a football or basketball or even soccer game.

[abadger]

Fair enough on the 2 years whatever. I just can't see sometimes how you can possibly see as many fights, the build up to the fights as they are happening etc to accurately judge everything that went on and who was a player in the division etc. That dynamic can't always be replaced by tapes of a fight, or clips and not full rounds of a fight as they happen.

I mostly dislike the boxrec as a crutch thing. For examples, the Margarito-Santos fight. I watched it live and it was close, and Margarito was coming on late and people act like Santos beat the tar out of him which isn't true.
Santos was winning sure but it was a tight fight . Also, people pooh-poohed Santos because he got ko'ed early by Jantuah, but he was a **** of a fighter and always has been and any dummy who saw him before those fights knows that.

Just so many examples is all. If you just watched James Toney Michael Nunn round 9 you would think Nunn ****** and was weak chinned.
etc etc

But you see, here I am with 18 months and I've seen both Toney's fight with Nunn and Marg's fight with Santos, and I agree with your assessment of the Santos fight completely. It can be hard at times to know how things were at the time, but I sometimes feel watching fights and fighters after the fact helps you cut through what was 'supposed' to have happened and the narratives surrounding the fights and look only at what did. It goes both ways for me, though there are tons of times I've thought "I wish I knew how this opponent or that one was regarded at the time".