We put too much emphasis on win/loss records in boxing

**The Comedian** · 07-01-2010, 07:35 PM

If somebody had a record like Chuck Liddell in boxing he would loss his whole fan base.

**jrosales13** · 07-01-2010, 07:36 PM

yea fans overall put to much into win/lose record...

It was not always like that though. But, somewhere around the way fans just started caring too much about that for some reason.

**Spray_resistant** · 07-01-2010, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by The Comedian

If somebody had a record like Chuck Liddell in boxing he would loss his whole fan base.

I know, its one thing I like about MMA as long a fighter delivers entertainment they keep bringing them back.

**jri9d0** · 07-01-2010, 07:41 PM

You can partially blame the media/promoters who bank on this, which in turn enables younger generation boxing fans to think that being undefeated is the only legitimacy to greatness or a boxer having an "x"amount of loses constitutes unworthiness

It's this distortion of this illusion that deceives the thinking of boxing fans and defining greatness.

BTW, I love the chick in your avy.

**Spray_resistant** · 07-01-2010, 07:47 PM

So we all agree that regardless of whether Hopkins did slightly more in a few different fights, him having a glitzy 56-0 record doesn't make him a better fighter in any way at all than he is now with his 51-5 record?

**jrosales13** · 07-01-2010, 07:50 PM

This is why I personally don't put so much emphasis on win/lose records. Between Emanuel Augustus/Burton, Jorge Paez, and Freddie Pendleton have between 72 loses while Sven Otkke is undefeated. IMO those 3 were overall better fighters than Ottke even though they had **** load of losses while Ottke never lost.

**gqjohnb** · 07-01-2010, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by jrosales13

yea fans overall put to much into win/lose record...

It was not always like that though. But, somewhere around the way fans just started caring too much about that for some reason.

That changed along with the times. The boxing game is different now where as fighters have the opportunity to be at there peak condition for every fight. This is an age where fighters get 9 week training camps and long breaks even between those. losses don't mean much when you have 200+ fights in your career because its inevitable for you to have an off night. I kind of like it better this way because it emphasizes preparation. At least thats the way I see it.

**gqjohnb** · 07-01-2010, 08:11 PM

More then win loss its about who your beating and how your beating them. Are these real champions your beating or chumps.

**Spray_resistant** · 07-01-2010, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by gqjohnb

That changed along with the times. The boxing game is different now where as fighters have the opportunity to be at there peak condition for every fight. This is an age where fighters get 9 week training camps and long breaks even between those. losses don't mean much when you have 200+ fights in your career because its inevitable for you to have an off night. I kind of like it better this way because it emphasizes preparation. At least thats the way I see it.

Anyone can have an off night any time regardless of how many fights they have.

I don't know about you but I don't want to hear/read about paper records which are usually poor indicators of how good a fighter is.

I want to know who they fought and who they lost to or who they beat in addition to whether they are worth watching.

We put too much emphasis on win/loss records in boxing