Why is losing once so horrible in the sport of boxing?

[WBC WBA IBF]

I can't think of any sport that depicts this strange malady. Fighters in other contact sport like MMA/UFC can fight multiple times regardless of loses. In basketball, one on one tennis, baseball, football, you name it, no such thing as this silliness in boxing.

There are so many boxers and so few high paying TV dates. If you're not a giant star or a world champion, your value to a TV network is essentially zero. If you lose, there are a hundred other guys who haven't gotten their opportunity that want your spot.

In MMA, where the general public only cares about one particular league (UFC), the league has an incentive to recycle their guys after losses rather than having to build someone new.

In boxing, where you have dozens of promoters trying to get their guy an opportunity, when your guy loses, there are 15 other guys with 15 different promoters all saying it should be their turn next.

[Silence]

Boxing fans are the most ****** fans in the entire sports industry. That's why.

[buddyr]

it wouldn't be if mfers fought more than once or twice a year and fought QUALITY COMPETITION!!!!

[tomhawq]

It's horrible, I can agree. There were many fighters who didn't get the win, but their performances were memorable, yet it takes ages to see them back in the ring again. They should at least be rewarded with an early fight with another guy who also lost, but also performed well. Jamaine Ortiz is one example at the top of my head.

[REMOVE SHARK 5510]

I don't care if you lose a fight, it's about how you take your loss. Boxing is a sport where anyone can knockout anybody, that's the beauty of it. Upsets happens. People shouldn't just look at the numbers in records but the opponents.

[SUBZER0ED]

It's about positioning for making $$$. The stars get rich, the rest hope to get there. Taking a loss to a non-star is like hitting the restart button.

[Toffee]

It shouldn't be a big deal, and it isn't that big a deal to me.

But it's slightly justifiable when you consider that a lot of these boxers are being carefully matched. ie they lose to someone who was specifically selected for them with most conditions in their favour. If Manchester United got to choose their opponents a few times a year at their own ground, you'd expect them to win.

As for losing big fights, I always think it just makes the rematch bigger. There should be more, for example, unification fights.

And for mandatories, well that's just sport. You can win and you can lose. Mandatories are the only bit of boxing business that resembles a sport.

[Roadblock]

Boxing fans are the most ****** fans in the entire sports industry. That's why.

Its not that they are ****** its more that they are young immature males full of ego with my guy is the toughest kid on the block mentality, then they build that position into their hero fighters that are hyped to the high heavens and if they lose they get deflated like a balloon, losing is being wrong, and youth hates to be wrong as they think they know everything, the biggest issue with boxing is the toxic fans, the fighters are moulded by the fans by trying to be a pseudo King Kongs while riding a white horse of honour, because that is what the fans want, winning is proving that status while losing is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[hugh grant]

Everyone gets criticised even unbeaten fighters. You only get criticised if you don't fight out of comfort zone. If your underdog and lose that's no problem. If you lose fights against someone not good or your favourite against its not good. Or just fight fights your expected to win that's not good as it maybe indicator your not challenging yourself to full potential

[Marchegiano]

Blame Marciano and Mayweather for setting the bar so high.