Too Much Emphasis on Belts and Loss Record

[ottoevans]

Do you think we focus too much on who has a specific belt or who has lost on whether is fighter is undefeated?
Let me Explain...


I consider myself a hardcore boxing fan who knows when upcoming fights will occur or rumors come about. I usually DVR any boxing show that comes on tv and sit on the computer everyday to see the latest news around the net.But i can honestly say i have no idea what specific title each champion in their division has. But i can tell you that Juan Manuel Marquez is the undisputed Lightweight Champ and that Ricky Hatton is the 140 champ. I also had the impression that Shane Mosley is the current 147 champ after beating Margarito. Also there are divisions that i am not sure of yet such as whos the Middleweight Champ Pavlik or Abraham or the New Lightheavyweight Champ after Joe retired? When Floyd was fighting at 147 did anybody really have doubt who was the champion of that division? I thought Spinks was 147 champ then Judah then Baldomir and finally Floyd taking the title.


Another matter id like to talk about is the loses on a fighters record. It seems like after a fighter loses in a big fight people are quick to brush him off the side. I look at the UFC and most of their top p4p fighters all have loses in their record. But they still get matched up with big time "exciting" fights. One example in boxing is Edison Miranda. He lost to the top 2 middleweights in the world and people are screaming to get him out of here. Edison Miranda brings excitement to boxing in every fight and regardless of his loses should always be involved in top TV fights. Another example is Ricardo Mayorga, yes he has a ton of loses and seems to be on his way out, but who wouldnt want to watch a Miguel Cotto vs. Mayorga fight? The outcome might be certain but you know you will get your moneys worth.

All im saying is we focus too much on a fighters loses and not on what his style brings to the table.

Id rather watch Miranda fight then Winky Wright anyday of the week

[ottoevans]

bump bump j

[Golden Boy 360]

people lose interest......i mean who wants to see glen"12 loss"johnson

[ottoevans]

yeah but glen johnson is one thing and Samuel Peter or Miranda is another thing.

I beleive if the guy is exciting we should show them.

Glen Johnson is non stop action but he doesnt have that KO power that people love.

[T-97]

I think an undefeated record has a huge amount of stock put in it these days, thanks to HBO IMO. They hail every undefeated champion as a god just because of that '0', rather than just focusing on what they've done, who they've fought etc, it's all about that magic '0'.

As for belts, I think the only belt worth holding really is the lineal title, otherwise your not the champion, your a title holder, and that means **** all at the end of the day. I mean, look at Berto. He has a trinket, who the **** has he fought? What has he done? He won a belt, by maintaining and undefeated record against a low class of opposition. Impressive? Nope. Hyped? Yep.

[ottoevans]

Yea but even Kelly Pavlik is an exmple after his fight with Hopkins everyone wants to throw him under the bus and have him shot.

Regadless of that loss the guy is exciting and comes in to knock someone out. Id much rather watch Paul Williams against Pavlik than Wright who cant hurt a Fly

[MANGLER]

Belts carry some status, dependin on what the titleholder does wit it. The Ring belt is the one that matters, but for the most part, guys wit alphabet belts are the other best guys in the division. Belts are bargainin chips for fighters to get some leverage when it's time to put fights together. Obviously the less losses a fighter has the better, but an 0 don't mean **** if it's never been defended against anybody A class. Every fighter who loses a big fight, even if it's by KO ain't automatically done. And plenty of elite fighters have lost more than once. Cats do care more about that **** than they should.

[FLY TY]

Yea but even Kelly Pavlik is an exmple after his fight with Hopkins everyone wants to throw him under the bus and have him shot.

Regadless of that loss the guy is exciting and comes in to knock someone out. Id much rather watch Paul Williams against Pavlik than Wright who cant hurt a Fly

you make a valid point, but i pay more attention to fighters who's strengths far outweight their weaknesses. of course paul williams-pavlik would be a more entertaining fight, but winky definitely shouldn't be overlooked or underlooked. he's a guy that hits, but is hard to hit back, and while his style may not be crowd pleasing, if you respect the science you gotta respect wright. imagine how hard it has to be to fight other "professional" fighters, but be virtually impossible to hit cleanly.

i understand the public's yearning to see guts and glory guys like hatton, pacman, gatti, cotto, but my biggest complaint is the lack of respect for guys like mayweather, hopkins, and winky wright. those guys understand the game, and they possess the type of skill you need if you hope to sustain any type of longevity in the sport. the three guys i named first, won't be fighting into their forties, not at a high level anyway.

[fight game]

willie pep going 230-11, benny leonard 157-11 and others like them are much more impressive than any undefeated record.