why are losses so devastating in this era of boxing?

[cuzfozzy]

not for de la hoya

[Left2theliver]

I wonder the same thing...

Cotto loses to Margarito and he's shot, mentaly unstable, lost something...Hatton loses twice in all his fights against two guys who, at the time, were considered the #1 p4p boxers...and now he needs to retire...

[talip bin osman]

i think the business side /economics of the game have sumthin to do with it... its not devastating per se &there are some stars that appear immune to this view however , like oscar & tyson but majority of our fighters today lose a lot of marketability if they lose a fight... linares, ortiz, antillon, arreola etc..

[The Gambler1981]

Loses in boxing are devistating for a couple reason, one is the whole mental aspect of loosing, boxers are used to be the alpha dog so when they are shown to have flaws and that there is somebody out there their whole mentality can take a hit, some guys are strong enough to take it others not so much.

Fans look at fighters like super heros almost so a loss is devastating to that mindset, people talk up up their guy to a point where no one could back up the talk so when their fighter loses they get humiliated so these type of people turn on their hero because they did not achieve their unacheviable expectations. This is a more recent thing atleast to the point it is now, forums like this thrive on that whole cycle.

[aldiansyah]

Some good points, but I think another part of it noone has mentioned is that top fighters fight a lot less each year than they used to... it's a business where you're only as good as your last fight, and if you have a loss, it can take up to 6 months or maybe more to land a fight and get back to winning ways; sometimes that consists of a softer fighter so you might be looking at a year or more between major fights, and that's no good for anyone.
I know it was compounded by injuries and other problems but Pavlik is a good example of this right now I think

[Bushidō]

Cause people are fickle. One loss = exposed these days. Watch IF Mayweather ever loses than he will be "exposed"

[Jim Jeffries]

Boxers fight far less often these days.

There is a lot more hype, probably because there is a lot more money involved.

Easier to hype fighters that are undefeated.

[JakeNDaBox]

I wonder the same thing...

Cotto loses to Margarito and he's shot, mentaly unstable, lost something...Hatton loses twice in all his fights against two guys who, at the time, were considered the #1 p4p boxers...and now he needs to retire...

Again, it's the way a fighter loses.

Cotto looked terrible at the end of the Margarito fight; he looked like a fighter who was physically AND mentally spent.

Hatton's loss to Mayweather was forgivable because he didn't belong at welterweight. However, the way he lost to Pacquiao - at 140, his most effective fighting weight - was certainly cause for alarm. Two brutal knockout losses in 18 months will generally have fans expressing concern for a fighter's health.

Conversely, a guy like Kessler is still viewed as among the best in his division, even though he no longer carries an unbeaten mark. Why? Because he didn't look like a ruined fighter in defeat.

[Freddy Krueger]

Losses hurt because we see that fighters cherry pick their whole career and finally take the time to step up and are exposed. And Cotto is undefeated he never lost and he fought the best. If you think Margarito only cheated against a 37 yr old and not Cotto, then you're the one in denial.

[Freddy Krueger]

Losses hurt because we see that fighters cherry pick their whole career and finally take the time to step up and are exposed. And Cotto is undefeated he never lost and he fought the best. If you think Margarito only cheated against a 37 yr old and not Cotto, then you're the one in denial.

So do any of you disagree with my comment? Am I being to hard-headed?