L. Merchant: "Today's breed of boxing fans put more emphasis on UNDEFEATED records"

[Southpaw Stinger]

So very true. I couldn't give a **** if you're undefeated.... unbeaten does not = unbeatable.
Just stay active, fight the best out there and be the best you can be.

[onechance87]

Good article.

[Pullcounter]

Excerpts from a recent Ring Magazine article...

-----------



Merchant, who has followed the sport since the 1940s, says there is little doubt that unbeaten records mean more to fans now than in decades past.

“In the old days, if a fighter was unbeaten the response from fans was ‘Who has he fought?’ and ‘Is he being protected?’” Merchant said. “Fighters were not judged by their records. They were judged on who they fought and how they fought them.

“In the modern era, records are used as marketing tool or as a means of attracting the attention of casual fans who may not follow the sport very closely. There’s a young fighter from Mexico, Saul Alvarez, on the undercard of Saturday’s fight. He’s 19 years old and 31-0. The record makes you curious. Fans see that record and wonder how good he really is. That’s a natural thing.”

If Alvarez continues his winning ways don’t be surprised if fan curiosity gives way to blind adulation and the young welterweight starts drawing comparisons to Mexican greats of the past.

Undefeated fighters gaining premature greatness has almost become a tradition in recent decades.

Mike Tyson, the sport’s biggest star when he was its undisputed, undefeated heavyweight champ, was put in the company of Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali before Buster Douglas shocked him and the rest of the world.

Boxing’s next star, Oscar De La Hoya, was compared to Sugar Ray Leonard until he lost his “O” to Felix Trinidad.

Between his decapitation of William Joppy and his humiliation at the hands of Bernard Hopkins, many fans wondered how Trinidad, 40-0 at the time, would have fared against the likes of Robinson and Carlos Monzon.

Marco Antonio Barrera was compared to Julio Cesar Chavez as he rolled to a magnificent 43-0 record. Then he rolled into the right hands of Junior Jones.

Many called Naseem Hamed, 35-0 with 31 knockouts going into his showdown with Barrera, the hardest punching featherweight in history before he was undressed by the Mexican boxer.

There are a dozen other examples but the story is the same. Undefeated fighters seem unbeatable and on par with the great ones of the sport, then they lose a fight and suddenly the all-time great comparisons cease.

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/1870/mayw...feated_record/

yes, only casual fans think an undefeated record is something great.

to real boxing fans, an undefeated fighter means that said boxing has been fighting bums or mismatches!!!!

[ATrillionaire]

Merchant also said "...I think Mosley will look across the ring at Mayweather and think to himself ‘I fought Vernon Forrest, Winky Wright and Miguel Cotto. Nobody he’s fought was as good as they were."

Merchant forgets to mention that Mosley lost to all of them.

[Chuckguy]

I understand exactly where he is coming from but I dont understand what these people want... if we are talking about mayweathers record (which I think we are) its terrific but its not just his record its the fact that clearly and undoubtably the boys got serious skills. I dont understand what they want from him....

We want him to have fought the best and challenge himself not cherry pick his opponents and not take on real challenges and dare to compare himself to Ali and SRR

[Chuckguy]

Merchant also said "...I think Mosley will look across the ring at Mayweather and think to himself ‘I fought Vernon Forrest, Winky Wright and Miguel Cotto. Nobody he’s fought was as good as they were."

Merchant forgets to mention that Mosley lost to all of them.

yeah but the point being that Mosley had the balls to fight them to prove he was the best
and yeah he lost but at least he tried
Floyd hasnt even tried
Floyd would never dare take that risk to be great

[ATrillionaire]

Actually that wasn't his point.

His point was that Mosley will look across the ring at Mayweather and not be intimated by the guy....that he fought Winky, Vernon, and Cotto, who (in his opinion) are all better fighters than anyone Mayweather has ever fought.

That would make sense if Mosley actually beat any of these guys. Didn't happen though.

[ATrillionaire]

Honestly, that's like saying that because I fought a Elephant and got my a$$ kicked, I shouldn't be intimidated by a Hippo because the Hippo has never fought the Elephant.

[southcentralcar]

merchant is a pac cheerleader

[Spacey1991]

Excerpts from a recent Ring Magazine article...

-----------



Merchant, who has followed the sport since the 1940s, says there is little doubt that unbeaten records mean more to fans now than in decades past.

“In the old days, if a fighter was unbeaten the response from fans was ‘Who has he fought?’ and ‘Is he being protected?’” Merchant said. “Fighters were not judged by their records. They were judged on who they fought and how they fought them.

“In the modern era, records are used as marketing tool or as a means of attracting the attention of casual fans who may not follow the sport very closely. There’s a young fighter from Mexico, Saul Alvarez, on the undercard of Saturday’s fight. He’s 19 years old and 31-0. The record makes you curious. Fans see that record and wonder how good he really is. That’s a natural thing.”

If Alvarez continues his winning ways don’t be surprised if fan curiosity gives way to blind adulation and the young welterweight starts drawing comparisons to Mexican greats of the past.

Undefeated fighters gaining premature greatness has almost become a tradition in recent decades.

Mike Tyson, the sport’s biggest star when he was its undisputed, undefeated heavyweight champ, was put in the company of Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali before Buster Douglas shocked him and the rest of the world.

Boxing’s next star, Oscar De La Hoya, was compared to Sugar Ray Leonard until he lost his “O” to Felix Trinidad.

Between his decapitation of William Joppy and his humiliation at the hands of Bernard Hopkins, many fans wondered how Trinidad, 40-0 at the time, would have fared against the likes of Robinson and Carlos Monzon.

Marco Antonio Barrera was compared to Julio Cesar Chavez as he rolled to a magnificent 43-0 record. Then he rolled into the right hands of Junior Jones.

Many called Naseem Hamed, 35-0 with 31 knockouts going into his showdown with Barrera, the hardest punching featherweight in history before he was undressed by the Mexican boxer.

There are a dozen other examples but the story is the same. Undefeated fighters seem unbeatable and on par with the great ones of the sport, then they lose a fight and suddenly the all-time great comparisons cease.

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/1870/mayw...feated_record/

I'd agree with the title yeah, I didin't read the whole thing. People do put too much emphasis on undefeated records and records as a whole, even though I am a Floyd fan I agree, I am a fan of him cause of his skills.

If a fighter loses nowadays, they are suddenly called a hypejob, a bum, when in reality to get as far as they did they can't have been. I honestly think that years ago if a fighter lost people would still be surprised but just say "well you can't win them all, lets see how he comes back from it", but now if somebody loses its "AHAHAHAHA! Hes a bum! What a hypejob exposed!", it is kinda stupid.