Why do people put so much on a loss??

[Rome-By-Ko]

and that also leads to potential mega-fights, not happening.

I personally dont care about undefeated records, I pretty critical of fighters resumes.

This is how I see it,totally agree with this...

[KING MEAT]

Mayweather set the standards

[Bullrider]

Not a lot of people care so much about undefeated record, which is normal. You'd always wonder who they fought to get to that undefeated status. Most of them are usually crap. Most people would rather focus on quantity and quality. Long periods of inactivity makes a lot of fans puke. No wonder he's undefeated.

[Rome-By-Ko]

Not a lot of people care so much about undefeated record, which is normal. You'd always wonder who they fought to get to that undefeated status. Most of them are usually crap. Most people would rather focus on quantity and quality. Long periods of inactivity makes a lot of fans puke. No wonder he's undefeated.

What does inactivity have to do with the quality of a fighters wins??Floyd for example,he can take layoff's as long as he is fighting the best option when he returns...It's always about quality not quantity..Most likely your not fighting top option if ya fighting all the time...

[Shogunofharlem1]

I mean it's not the end of the world,this is boxing and it can happen to anyone...I've seen some post of people talking about Khan..Yes he loss 3 fights..But the kid is young and can rebound if he takes his craft and opponents more seriously...It's like that with loads of fighters tho,if the fighter loses fans lose interest in the fighter...This is something I've never got,hell sometimes a loss is a good thing and a learning experience..What are some thoughts on this subject....

Because it hints at other things. Many fighters are not capable of changing their style up after its been exposed. If a boxer can expose glaring problems in a fighting style that took years to create, its really bad news. I think Roach said something like "I dont look for mistakes, I look for habits." If you notice many fighters who have their styles broken down tend to loose the same way in many fights afterward because they cant change and now their opponents know what to exploit. Ortiz being an obvious example

[-Kev-]

Because losses don't mean a thing. The greatest fighters of all time have losses.

But when it fits their agenda, a fighter loses he gets exposed. Or a fighter has losses he's a bad fighter. Or a fighter is undefeated, he's just untested and is no good.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Because losses don't mean a thing. The greatest fighters of all time have losses.

But when it fits their agenda, a fighter loses he gets exposed. Or a fighter has losses he's a bad fighter. Or a fighter is undefeated, he's just untested and is no good.

It depends on who you lose to, but losses are a part of the game. Mayweather loves to flaunt his unblemished record, but even he can easily have a "1" in the "L" column. As amazing as Floyd is, there are many who think he should've lost to Castillo in their first encounter. I'm not necessarily one of them, but it was a close fight. There have been much wider fights that went in favor of the loser: Rios-Abril, *cough* *cough*.

[DannYankee]

In any other case i would agree with you 100%, but honestly i don't think this applies to Khan he's just wayyy too chinny and were not talking about flash knockdowns, he gets rocked to hes core when he gets hit cleanly. Not to say i wouldn't watch the guy he's exciting as hell for that same reason, but again for that reason you cant put much stock in him.

[MVOLT]

cuz mosely uses roids

[illmaticfighter]

i hate mma but a loss means nothing in that sport i think it should apply over to boxing as well but i doubt it'll ever happen.