Boxing's obsession with the 0

[casheddie]

I mean since when do we slam fighters for NOT LOSING??? if you fight the best and win then you are the ****ing best....what kind of loser ass society are we trying to create?

Hell Rhoda Rousey lost and disappeared....**** the UFC

So what, look at McGregor who lost and went right back for the rematch.

We have orange colored cunts like Canelo who lose to Mayweather and then never fight a dangerous fight again because it poses too much of a risk.

[daggum]

I mean since when do we slam fighters for NOT LOSING??? if you fight the best and win then you are the ****ing best....what kind of loser ass society are we trying to create?

boxing has trouble with the bold. sorry waiting 5 plus years and for your opponent to be knocked out cold shouldn't cut it unless you are a rabid fan boy. and that's just one fight. whenever a fighter takes one tough fight his fanboy lovers act like he doesn't have to take another risk for years like wtf is that sh-it? if you are champ in the ufc you don't get easy guerrero/Ortiz/maidana etc...fights

[casheddie]

Mayweather's fault?? he fought the best and beat the best and EARNED HIS 0..since when did losing become ok??? do you raise your kids to lose?

Mayweather? You mean when he ducked Pac for 5 years and then made a shitshow out of boxing in front of the whole world.

Or before that when he ducked Cotto and let him lose twice to Margarito and Pac before fighting him.

Or when he waited for Oscar to get old and slow with 4 losses to finally fight him and then hugged for 12 rounds.

Losing is okay when you lose to the best. You imbeciles seem to believe that a loss is a loss. But it's not,because if you lose to Keith Thurman, it's not the same as losing to John Molina Jr.

GOT IT?

[stuff jones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsNO1dWstPI

[casheddie]

Mayweather's fault?? he fought the best and beat the best and EARNED HIS 0..since when did losing become ok??? do you raise your kids to lose?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsNO1dWstPI

Thank you. When Curry and the warriors won the 2015 NBA championship because they had the best shooters, guess what happened next season. The whole fucking league upped their 3 point attempts.

When these lesser known fighters look at the best, they imitate the best. However, unfortunately for us our best is Mayweather and he's in boxing.

[b00g13man]

Poster's like OP would be the first to attempt to discredit Floyd's opponents based on their losses. GTFO with that hypocrisy.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Like for christs sake why do we care about the record when the fights suck.
Look at the UFC (and I know how much we hate them right) but look at the greats fights they put on almost 9-10 times a year. We barely get 1-2 in boxing.

I can't even tell you McGregor or Cain Velasquez's record. But I'm damn sure gonna watch them fight.

This is all mayweather's fault btw

The 0 is impressive to a point. When a fighter has 20 or 30 fights and has never lossed, there can be no doubt that they are doing something right. It does look good in the beginning and on the surface.

However, it usually tells very little. A guy can face twenty or thirty bums for sure and even squeak by some of them and still be undefeated, although not impressively. In historic times, records were never mentioned when fighters were introduced in a fight. I think this was better TBH.

Records and the keeping of them is important. This tells us a good portion of the story, although not all obviously. You can get on boxrec and see how Hector Camacho defeated Roberto Duran by decision in their first fight, although everyone who saw the fight had Duran ahead, including the announcers sitting at ringside. Most people felt that Whitaker beat Chavez, but the record stats the fight was a draw. many felt that Mayweather himself lost to Castillo and potentially DLH and Maidana. Rocky Marciano never technically lost but he had several close calls. Calzaghe never technically lost but some of his decision wins have been disputed. Ricardo Lopez never lost as an amateur or a pro which is mind blowing. Many felt that he did lose a fight against Rosendo Alvarez, but the record indicates it was a draw. So undefeated technically isn't always undefeated in the eyes of the fans.

In closing, I feel that records are an indicator but only on the surface. Jake LaMotta had losses in the double digits as did Duran, Robinson and so many other greats through the sport's history. However, I don't believe it hurt their legacies or deterred them from becoming the legends they ended up becoming by one little bit. And of course, some feel that an undefeated fighter only has yet to be in a real fight.

[casheddie]

Poster's like OP would be the first to attempt to discredit Floyd's opponents based on their losses. GTFO with that hypocrisy.

Mayweather outclassed great boxers but what he was doing towards the end was a mockery. C'mon, Berto? Guerrero? Ortiz? He didn't fight guys like Khan and Thurman for a reason. Even when he had the chance.

[casheddie]

Poster's like OP would be the first to attempt to discredit Floyd's opponents based on their losses. GTFO with that hypocrisy.

The 0 is impressive to a point. When a fighter has 20 or 30 fights and has never lossed, there can be no doubt that they are doing something right. It does look good in the beginning and on the surface.

However, it usually tells very little. A guy can face twenty or thirty bums for sure and even squeak by some of them and still be undefeated, although not impressively. In historic times, records were never mentioned when fighters were introduced in a fight. I think this was better TBH.

Records and the keeping of them is important. This tells us a good portion of the story, although not all obviously. You can get on boxrec and see how Hector Camacho defeated Roberto Duran by decision in their first fight, although everyone who saw the fight had Duran ahead, including the announcers sitting at ringside. Most people felt that Whitaker beat Chavez, but the record stats the fight was a draw. many felt that Mayweather himself lost to Castillo and potentially DLH and Maidana. Rocky Marciano never technically lost but he had several close calls. Calzaghe never technically lost but some of his decision wins have been disputed. Ricardo Lopez never lost as an amateur or a pro which is mind blowing. Many felt that he did lose a fight against Rosendo Alvarez, but the record indicates it was a draw. So undefeated technically isn't always undefeated in the eyes of the fans.

In closing, I feel that records are an indicator but only on the surface. Jake LaMotta had losses in the double digits as did Duran, Robinson and so many other greats through the sport's history. However, I don't believe it hurt their legacies or deterred them from becoming the legends they ended up becoming by one little bit. And of course, some feel that an undefeated fighter only has yet to be in a real fight.

I think you're right but when you look at fighters like Garcia, Thurman, Canelo and GGG.

I think the reason they don't take fights with dangerous opposition is because they think they could never win. When it came to Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hagler these guys believed that they could win. But nowadays the fighters don't have the confidence to go back and fight the guy again.

That goes back to the problem with boxing is if you lose a fight you might never get a chance to win back the belt or avenge the loss if the other fighter "ducks".

[Chuckguy]

Mayweather's fault?? he fought the best and beat the best and EARNED HIS 0..since when did losing become ok??? do you raise your kids to lose?

Oh yeah Berto Guerrero Canelo maidana they were all the best oh yeah that's so true