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

[johncods]

" All road leads to Julio cesar chavez jr. "

" There's no blue print to beat Jr. "

" 41 have tried, 41 have fallen!! "

[jrosales13]

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.

Eh, I just named 4 fighters who fought in the last 20 years. They not from the 200+ fights era. And, I seriously think that 3 fighters who are better than say Ottke or even JCC Jr but don't get the attention cuz they don't have that "very pretty 0" then I don't like this better. But, that is me... Hell honestly I thinkk Pendleton, Augustus, and Paez might have been better fighters than Berto. But, just cuz Berto has his "0" he gets all this damn TV dates.

It should never be about your win/lose record. It should be about the fighter.

[gqjohnb]

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.

I'm not denying that but I feel its nearly inevitable when you fight more frequently and the underlined part I agree with I just said that in the post right before yours.

[Spacey1991]

I was thinking about how fans perceive a fighter whether as P4P elite, contender, former great now past it ETC.....

Just look at Bernard Hopkins for example, I am not even really a fans but in his 5 losses all were pretty close and even 2 of those fight(Taylor) he could have won.

Many of them were so close that I estimate in 5 different fights he would have had to had won about 10-12 more rounds total to have a record of 56-0 today.

Just imagine if he did have a record like that today and he easily could have had it had things gone slightly different or he was a bit busier in some fights.

B-hop right now would be P4P #1 and rated as a top 10 ATG even though none of us have business making lists of that sort.

My point is even though it didn't happen that way, it easily could have and if it had, today he would still be the same fighter he is which is crafty fighter who is now on the downslide because of his age but it would be blasphemy if anyone said that on the sole basis that 56 would have tired and 56 would have failed.

Agreed, it aint as bad in the amateurs though.

[gqjohnb]

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.

Oh and when I said I liked it better I meant that fighters have more time for preparation not necessarily that they put so much emphasis on record. The real boxing fans usually know the difference between a fighter that is undefeated against subpar opponents and a real legit fighter.

[Spray_resistant]

I'm not denying that but I feel its nearly inevitable when you fight more frequently and the underlined part I agree with I just said that in the post right before yours.

Sure the more you fight the more chances there are that you have an off night but its no reason to glorify the "0" to the extent that it has been.

Take Wlad for another example, imagine if he didn't have to be developed into the fighter he is today and beat Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster(the 1st time)?

He would be 57-0, Wlad now is much better than all of those guys but early losses hurt even though it doesn't change how good fighters actually are or how not so good an unbeaten fighter could be.

[gqjohnb]

Sure the more you fight the more chances there are that you have an off night but its no reason to glorify the "0" to the extent that it has been.

Take Wlad for another example, imagine if he didn't have to be developed into the fighter he is today and beat Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster(the 1st time)?

He would be 57-0, Wlad now is much better than all of those guys but early losses hurt even though it doesn't change how good fighters actually are or how not so good an unbeaten fighter could be.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you there are cases when people make the mistake of putting too much inference on an undefeated record. I just feel it is a natural consequence of fighters having less and less fights in a career.

[Dick Buffman]

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.

It emphasizes ducking and picking and choosing opponents carefully. If you like this new system, write HBO and tell them you love it.

Because they've created it.

[gqjohnb]

Eh, I just named 4 fighters who fought in the last 20 years. They not from the 200+ fights era. And, I seriously think that 3 fighters who are better than say Ottke or even JCC Jr but don't get the attention cuz they don't have that "very pretty 0" then I don't like this better. But, that is me... Hell honestly I thinkk Pendleton, Augustus, and Paez might have been better fighters than Berto. But, just cuz Berto has his "0" he gets all this damn TV dates.

It should never be about your win/lose record. It should be about the fighter.

Yeah you make good points. The real fans look deeper than just whether your defeated or not though. No need to compare Berto to those guys though because he's just getting to the elite level so if he is subpar he'll lose sooner than later and we'll know those guys careers are over. Most of the real fans know Sven's record is a product of subpar competition rather than true greatness right??

[Dick Buffman]

To your thread spray, the reason people love "0"'s is because they love to delude themselves.

Deep down they know the 0 is bull****, and they know the fighter they're watching is not as great as his 0 suggests, but they're so used to bull**** they've become dependent on it.

Like a heroin addict, the American public has been raised on bull****. If you suddenly took bull**** away from them, they would have violent withdrawals and probably die spiritually upon realizing everything they know is not only wrong, but false.

So rather than make that difficult realization, they continue to not only condone, praise and support bull****, but they also demand bigger, fouler, steamier bull**** from the bull**** purveyors all the time since much like heroin, you develop a serious tolerance to bull**** after a while, so you always need bigger bull**** to be satisfied.

This is really how we've arrived at Floyd Mayweather. Or more accurately, the idea of "Floyd Mayweather".