Why do you put so much on a loss?

[RlCKY]

A loss can be a great thing for a fighter. I personally feel if you don't have a loss on your record, then you haven't been fighting stiff enough competition. Not many have ever been good enough to consistantly beat the best available contender each and every time out.

[hugh grant]

Totally agree with TS. There is nothing wrong with losing as no one is unbeatable. Some boxers with unbeaten records it seems is there claim to fame, but it shouldnt be, as boasting about an unbeaten record is to suggest you think you are unbeatable, but that cant be the case, cos no one is unbeatable. So unbeaten records count for zilch, as all the boxers considered the greatest are guys with losses. If you havent got a loss you arent great.

To prove my point the greatest guy with an unbeaten record is probaby Marciano, or joe calzaghe, but they arent high ATGs now are they? Which proves the theory if you want to be great you have to have lost, otherwise you got out early or didnt do enough while you were fighting.

[marvelousmatt]

I like a good scrap,period. The ESPN fights have been better and love the new NBC series. Helping fighters grow and creating stars through publicity is always good for the sport. While records are important...styles make fights as do good match-makers.We need better match-ups. It's easy to get excited about warriors doing battle in true 50/50 or 60/40 fights or even fights with truly live dogs that are good for betting.