Is it better to lose early in pro career or later?

[Jax teller]

Not losing means nothing, beating everybody is where it is at.

[g27region]

It's better to not lose at all. "0" in your record means everything

[Lopez_Boxing]

I think it depends on the person and how they handle their looses on a mental level. But as far as your marketability, the public generally only remembers your last fight. So if you lose that may dent your reputation until you come back and get a win, then “you're back”

[Floyd is TBE]

Look at how many times Pac had lost. He was still afraid of Mayweather, he was afraid to fight any of the top contenders without a cw, and he's still afraid to give any of these young lions a shot. Losing isn't going to make a coward brave

[The D3vil]

Late, after you've already made your money and got your props.

Nobody cares about Ali losing to Berbick or Tyson losing to Danny Williams

[billeau2]

I watched a recent interview with Tyson Fury, in the build up to the Wilder match, and he made a very good point. Most of the headline fighters nowadays are too reluctant to put their unbeaten records on the line.

I am just wondering what everyone's thoughts are when it comes to unbeaten fighters verses fighters that have experienced a loss early in their careers and what scenario is better for a pro?

Obviously you have the very few that are exceptional and have never tasted defeat but with the likes of headline fighters that are active i.e. Wilder, Fury, Usyk, Joshua...should they have tasted defeat early so they could develop further and into better fighters?

It would seem in the modern era where boxing is far more accessible via other platforms that a loss would mean the end of their popularity. Does anyone agree with that?

Much better to lose the zero and fight. being undefeated says more about the competition than the fighter.

[champion4ever]

In my opinion it's always better for a young athlete to get off to good start and start losing later rather than earlier. Because by winning earlier you get all kinds of sponsorships and endorsements; In addition, to having a very marketable career.

[evets]

Many fighters I watched have come back very strong after a loss in the late end of the first 10 fights or very early in the teen range of fights when the number of rounds is up and they are facing different types of thing for the first time and learning the limits of their body (and finding out that roadwork is damn important after all) . Very rarely seen a first fight or second fight loss be productive. A late loss can help reinvigorate someone but realistically by that point in their career they may not be able to learn anything from it. Marketing wise a late loss is better than an early loss though as that means rematch but it has to have had an "0 has to go" match preceeding it so early loss scuppers that.

[Larry the boss]

I think losing is horrible and you should not lose period..but if you do lose then it better damn well be against an elite opponent

[HarvardBlue]

It depends. Having a loss after 2 or 3 fights could derail a boxers entire career. Losing early like Bernard Hopkins did to Roy Jones probably made him a better fighter. If the loss is to an elite fighter you get a pass. Canelo losing to Mayweather is not a big deal. But if he lost to Trout or even Lara, no one would be calling him the face of boxing.

Losing doesn't necessarily make a fighter better. It sometimes just mean they weren't that good in th first place.