Does a loss(es) on a fighters' record skew the fans perception?

[Aztekkas]

*Does it affect the way they perceive his abilities or skill set?

Take Lomachenko for example. His lone loss came on his 2nd professional fight against a vet with countless losses. So in this example, Salido was seen as stepping stone due to his record. Although he pretty much ended JuanMa's run at the top and most of his losses had came earlier in his career.

After losing to Salido, Lomachenko has had some serious wins and the skills and abilities he has displayed in the ring have been top notch since.

He was beaten a threat in Walters, a skilled Russel and an upset maker in Sosa. However, people are still holding his Salido loss over his head and acting like his loss outweighs his accomplishments, especially since it came at the hands of a vet with a mediocre looking record.

Then you look at fighters whom have done far less but are seen as some type of boogeyman. For example Spence Jr. Whom is perceived as some monster by some and held in high regard due to his unblemished record.

Is it because he's undefeated and Lomachenko isn't?

*Now I used these fighters because these are two of the most relevant names in today's current boxing landscape. Im sure there have been more in the past and will be more in the future.

Does a loss on a fighters record really set him back to a point he has to over achieve to prove himself worthy of being mentioned on the mythical PFP list? Why does a loss hold so much weight, even after the fighter proves himself and redeems himself by taking on and beating significant threats and names?

It seems to me that a loss or losses on a fighters' record can skew the fans perception of his skill and abilities. Especially since the "0" in the loss column is viewed by many as an indicator of a fighters' greatness nowadays.

Thoughts?

[Fists_of_Fury]

When your delusional fans say you can basically beat anyone from 126-140lbs including prime ATG's like Pretty Boy Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, and Roberto Duran the Salido loss has to be brought up. The guy is super talented but he needs a resume before being mentioned with the greats. He lost to Salido already so why hype him to delusional levels after beating Sosa (Who?)?

[Redd Foxx]

It often does. Hearns is a perfect example. People see highlight clips or boxrec and say, "his chin doe". The guy walked through shots that would floor a lot of guys.
Everyone claims they want the best to fight the best, but then they absolutely trash the loser. Look what they did to Postol. Incredible how one loss to a P4P guy means he was garbage all along (despite doing the impossible and making Matthysse quit).

[BM dnobagaV]

No fighter with a lose is greater than an undefeated one.

Marciano, Ottke, Mayweather, Calzaghe, Golovkin, Thurman, Ward, Pirog, Joshua, Spence are all ATG caliber fighters.

Duran, Pacquiao, SRL, SRR, Ali, Jones, Hopkins, Lomachenko, Lewis, Holyfield, Kovalev are garbage because they've lost.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

it does but only reason salido lums over lomachenko head is because he has yet to face anyone with that type of style.

So thats why max kellerman said on his sosa fight something like lomachenko is good we know that but we still dont know if he can handle a inside fight.

[Mike D]

It definitely does have a visual affect

When you see a guy with a glistening record, you know, something like 27-0, even with less than stellar competition, it's still easy to be swayed by it

But a perfect example is the Lomachenko vs Gary Russell example

Russell was what, 24-0 going into their fight? Meanwhile Vasyl was 1-1. To a casual fan who had no idea who either was, they would expect a complete blowout by Russell.

But beneath the thin surface of those records, Lomachenko had already faced a tougher opponent in his second career fight than Russell faced in all 24 or whatever of his fights.

And that was put on full display in their fight, as the 1-1 fighter completely outclassed the 24-0 fighter.

Yeah we do get caught up in shiny records...I'm just as guilty as anybody, but in reality it's obviously way more important about WHO you fought.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

*Does it affect the way they perceive his abilities or skill set?

Take Lomachenko for example. His lone loss came on his 2nd professional fight against a vet with countless losses. So in this example, Salido was seen as stepping stone due to his record. Although he pretty much ended JuanMa's run at the top and most of his losses had came earlier in his career.

After losing to Salido, Lomachenko has had some serious wins and the skills and abilities he has displayed in the ring have been top notch since.

He was beaten a threat in Walters, a skilled Russel and an upset maker in Sosa. However, people are still holding his Salido loss over his head and acting like his loss outweighs his accomplishments, especially since it came at the hands of a vet with a mediocre looking record.

Then you look at fighters whom have done far less but are seen as some type of boogeyman. For example Spence Jr. Whom is perceived as some monster by some and held in high regard due to his unblemished record.

Is it because he's undefeated and Lomachenko isn't?

*Now I used these fighters because these are two of the most relevant names in today's current boxing landscape. Im sure there have been more in the past and will be more in the future.

Does a loss on a fighters record really set him back to a point he has to over achieve to prove himself worthy of being mentioned on the mythical PFP list? Why does a loss hold so much weight, even after the fighter proves himself and redeems himself by taking on and beating significant threats and names?

It seems to me that a loss or losses on a fighters' record can skew the fans perception of his skill and abilities. Especially since the "0" in the loss column is viewed by many as an indicator of a fighters' greatness nowadays.

Thoughts?

It has a lot to do with the era we just came out of. Many think that Mayweather was unbeatable because he never lost. This of course, is garbage. Many of the same posters would easily say that Marciano or Calzaghe would have lost if they'd been in with better competition, while Mayweather himself took a safety first strategy his entire career. For those who are very statistic happy, the unbeaten record is an idol to which they bow down. However this is a modern thing.

If you watch fights from sixties and on back, fighters' records were not even mentioned in the introductions, just as they shouldn't be now. We get a novel about a fighter during the introductions and the crowd obviously does not care. They just want to see the fight.

As in the Lomachenko example, a loss doesn't end anything for a fighter except for the unbeaten streak. Many fighters only get better with their losses and learn from them. Joe Louis certainly learned from his loss to Schmeling. Many others have done the same. Decades ago, most fighters had incurred losses before even getting a title shot. Of course, there was only one champion in eight divisions back then which held each title in much higher regard than we have nowadays. We hold an unbeaten record in more esteem than the titles since there are so many that they've nearly become useless. It's a crazy era.

I don't think a loss does anything. Pac climbed the ranks and became a huge star with 3 losses and 2 draws to his name- two of those losses by KO to unknowns in the Phillipines. And people also love a good comeback story. When Lennox Lewis avenged his loss to Hasim Rachman, his fanbase only grew bigger. There's something special about picking yourself up from defeat and coming back to win.

The main folks I see fixated on past losses are those boxing fans who hate the fighters they are talking about and would never be their fans in a million years. They are close-minded and won't budge. This is fine. The boxers definitely don't care as they have their own fan bases. For me, I don't mind at all. Kovalev lost in November. I didn't agree with the decision but technically, it's a loss. Am I any less of a fan? Definitely not. I'm also still a fan of Roman Gonzalez. There will always be fair weather fans who go for the winner. But not me. If I like a guy's style, I stick with him.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It often does. Hearns is a perfect example. People see highlight clips or boxrec and say, "his chin doe". The guy walked through shots that would floor a lot of guys.
Everyone claims they want the best to fight the best, but then they absolutely trash the loser. Look what they did to Postol. Incredible how one loss to a P4P guy means he was garbage all along (despite doing the impossible and making Matthysse quit).

Great example. That was ludicrous. Haha. Speaking of which, I wonder when the human praying mantis is coming back or if?

[Bravado]

It depends on how they lose, who the fighter is and how silly you are. Lucas lost to Garcia and people who said he was the boogie man really don't support him anymore, even though he lost to Zab frickin Judah. Loma got roughed up by a bigger guy and people wont let that loss go because even though he's much better now, its room to hinge on him being a man who lost to OS.

Floyd fought a really good JLC and people throw it out there to slander Floyd. Same with Andre x Sergey. So even tho the last two aren't losses officially, they still reign as losses in the eyes of many people who want to use that as reasons to hinge on them not being great because even though they are, the idea is they can't win close matches.

[iamboxing]

It probably does. I'm truly selfish when it comes to boxing, I wanna be entertained period. I'm not a big boxing aficionado so I'm not really bothered about skill unless it's aesthetically pleasing like Loma, Mayweather (Ward bores me silly). I'm more into KO ratios. When I see two fighters with records like 30 wins 0 losses 50% KO ratios I know I'm in for a boring ass fight.