Why in today's boxing, only 1 defeat is a career ender

[Eff Pandas]

Losses have always been setbacks. But fighters used to fight more often so they could redeem themselves faster.

When you fight 2x per year and lose once, it could take years to get back to the level you were at.

Solid point. Back in the day when top guys fought weekly & monthly at times or even in more modern but now distant times when top guys fought 4-6 times a year a L couldn't have quite as much impact as it does now when guys are fighting 2-3 times a year. Obviously the less fights you have the more damaging a L is going to be. And in particular when guys have 20 gimmie fights to start off their career & then lose their 2nd legit competitive fight the L will & should hurt their momentum & have people wondering how good they are.

[BrometheusBob.]

Mostly because top fighters fight less often.

[Helm]

Why?

Because undefeated fighters in their prime don't fight each other, and because we have 4 belt for every weight class and this is a bull****

Undefeated fighters MUST face each other in their prime and there MUST be 1 world champion and 1 belt for every weight division

[Eff Pandas]

Because casual fans feel like boxers need to remain with their 0 aka the Floyd fan brigade.

I don't see this as being a Floyd related development. Undefeated fighters have been super hyped forever. Marciano, Chavez Sr when he had his streak going on, Calzaghe, Ricardo Lopez, Tyson before he lost, even guys who had a nice stretch of being undefeated like Michael Nunn, James Toney, Rid**** Bowe etc & so on had a nice chunk of hype with them cuz of that 0. The power of the 0 came way before Floyd was around.

Plus most of the guys who are getting flushed down the toilet by some fans after a L aren't even known to the casual fans yet I'd argue. And I'd still argue some need to get flushed down the toilet cuz their records are a construct of their promoters influence & matchmaking more than a meaningful set of numbers representing ones talent so when a guy loses one of his first competitive fights its more like he's 1-1 now not 21-1.

[ironmike2012]

It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it matters how you fought.
It also matters who and when.

Broner's loss to Maidana, while he did get beat up, he did show a lot of heart and fought his way back into the fight. If Broner was a chump, he would have quit or got stopped. He actually showed more in defeat than his cherry pick wins. Floyd robbed him of a rematch (which I wanted to see). But the Porter loss, Broner barely tried.
One of my favorite fighters is Provodnikov, I don't care how many losses he has. I will always tune in for his fights.

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

I agree but I think with Mexicn fighters like Canelo it's different, Canelo got outclassed and then almost lost again to Lara but his fans have been very loyal to him and now he got another chance to fight for the biggest payday of his career, not necessarily because of his talent or accomplishments in the ring, but mainly due to his huge fans base in Mexico, Mexican fans are very loyal man, they support their fighters no matter what.

American fans however don't know what loyality means in boxing nowadays, once u lose u r a bum that just got exposed, American fans give foreign fighters chances but when the American fighter loses he's written off completely, that's just the way it is.

great post great thread!!!!

[jas]

because everyone thinks they are floyd

[soul_survivor]

For the last few years I've noticed that once a fighter loses for the first time, all of sudden he is exposed and done for. Really? When did this become the standard? Prime example is Canelo Alvarez. When Floyd beat him everybody was saying he was exposed and no good. The kid wasn't even 25 when he fought against the best boxer in the world. Can some of you guys on here let me know what you think.

In the fans eyes, you may be right but in reality, it's not true at all, unless a fighter loses at a very early stage in his career and never manages to rebound. Manny Pacquiao was one of the most popular fighters on the planet for over a decade, still is and he has several losses on his record.

Khan, for all his hate, has enduring popularity on both sides of the pond, gaining millions of viewers and millions of dollars, yet he lost when first stepping up from British/Commonwealth level. Yet he managed to carve out the best modern day LWW resume and still is a name at welterweight.

So, a loss isn't all doom and gloom, as long as fighters can rebound, no matter what the fans say.

[barks62]

If I could change one thing in boxing, it would be this. As others have said, being afraid to lose means you won't take on good competition, which means we don't get to see great matchups. I wish more guys were willing to challenge themselves.

[puro dinamita]

cause of a alot of dumb ass fans on here wanna be calling these dude that have never been tested the greatest of any era so when you seee them lose those fans commit suicide and there stock plummets that's all a lost don't mean nothing.