Why do people claim fighters are ruined after a loss?

[Swag Hustla]

Depends on how they loss first off. Mentality, and confidence is such a big part of boxing, that it can really hurt you.

If you get bruatally ko'd of course, then most say it's a lot easier to be ko'd again. You lose resistance.

True, but it seems like fighters these days have less resistance physically and are mentally weaker after losing. All it takes is one fight, but many fighters in the past actually came back better after getting their ass beat. Joe Louis took a major beating and got "exposed" by Schmelling. I think if that fight happened now with two similar fighters in the same situation, the Louis-type fighter would never be the same and everyone would claim he is already shot.

[TheKza]

I don't know why everyone thinks Cotto is ruined. Guy has two losses... And some great wins.

That's because Margarito done him dirty when he gave him a beating, mentally it must have demoralised him.

[Gutz]

I mean some fighters are obviously shot like Hatton, Vargas, and Morales. But it seems fighters in the past took beatings and fought more often, but only became shot after taking a beating in a back and forth war (Ali-Frazier) or just become plain old (Robinson/Louis). Losing to a better fighter wasn't the end of your career like it seems like now. Many fighters came back better and stronger after losing, even after getting knocked the hell out.

Fighters seem like they are better conditioned/skilled and have longer careers these days, but seem to get "shot" or "ruined" much more younger and sooner in their careers than the old school fighters. It seems like a total cop out when you compare the new school fighters to the old school, who took way more damage and got paid a lot less.

Morales ruined Pac ..... ohh wait...

[The_Demon]

if a guy loses at the wrong time it can ruin his career