The unbeaten record, how important really???

[thepocketrocket]

In recent years the undefeated record has become very important, fighters careers have been built on it, Joe Calzaghe being one of that number, it means everything to guys like him and to some boxing fans also.

Marciano is rated very highly because of his unbeaten record, the '0' has made some blind to the fact that his record was built on fighting guys who were past it...Calzaghe talks of his '10 year reign' when in fact its been very weak...

On the flipside you have Oscar de la Hoya, a man who has a number of losses on his record yet has ducked no-one, a man who has given us great fights...of course he could have sat on his belt for 10 years and been undefeated but he wanted to fight the top guys.

So in this modern era of boxing how much does the '0' really mean, should a fighter be lauded for good matchmaking, it is of couse his body taking the beating or does boxing, if it wants to survive long into the next century need to adjust and actually make the fights the public want to see, win, lose or draw??

[twenty six]

It's alright talking about the likes of Calzaghe and De La Hoya - they represent 0.01% of the boxing fraternity.
Boxing is a game of snakes and ladders.
Win and you climb a ladder lose and you hit the snake and a rebuilding operation is needed.
Trust me that is fuckin difficult.
So in conclusion, on behalf of the 99.99% of boxers who only dream of getting to the level of the aforementioned boxers, yes the 0 on the record is very important.
As a sport, yes maybe less of a focus on the "0" would be welcome, but ask the Promotors.

[Old bones Ian]

TV seem to like unbeaten records.

And did you know that Marciano did lose a fight after he turned pro. but it was in an amatuer match.
Also Julio Cesar Chavez is someone who's record was changed to keep him unbeaten, "For many years all the leading record books, including both Pugilato and The Ring Record Book, recorded the first loss of Julio Cesar Chavez as being by disqualification....
This has since been changed to a knockout victory for Chavez, based on confirmation from the local boxing commission in Culiacan that it altered the verdict the following day.
Ramon Felix, manager of Chavez, happened to be a member of the Culiacan commission at the time."
The A-Z of World Boxing by Bert Blewett (1996) at p. 341.

[twenty six]

Ian,
You been eating encyclopedias again ?

[Poncey]

TV seem to like unbeaten records.

And did you know that Marciano did lose a fight after he turned pro. but it was in an amatuer match.
Also Julio Cesar Chavez is someone who's record was changed to keep him unbeaten, "For many years all the leading record books, including both Pugilato and The Ring Record Book, recorded the first loss of Julio Cesar Chavez as being by disqualification....
This has since been changed to a knockout victory for Chavez, based on confirmation from the local boxing commission in Culiacan that it altered the verdict the following day.
Ramon Felix, manager of Chavez, happened to be a member of the Culiacan commission at the time."
The A-Z of World Boxing by Bert Blewett (1996) at p. 341.

But then the TV exects moan, as they did when Ian interviewed them, that fighters don't fight the best out there. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

[Old bones Ian]

I think it has changed in the US, as HBO seem to be sodding the titles and the unbeaten records and want to see the best fight each other.
Will we see the day that happens in the UK? i doubt it, some promoters sign exclusive deals with TV companies. This limits the chances of seeing competitive fights.
Maybe the TV companies have noticed this now, SKY certainly have.

[DavidPayne]

Can a fight be a mega-fight with out at least one zero?

[josh fg]

Well the biggest british fight in years was between two guys with one loss on there record (Haye and Macaranelli so it may be that the good british fans are finaly getting a bit more grown up about what they look for in a boxer.

[Poncey]

Partially agree Ian. If it isn't a GBP fighter HBO want to see the best fight the best, but there's too much bias at HBO regarding GBP (there was a great article on S/O about it, I think Hauser wrote it). HBO appear to be parading the RING belt as a legitimate belt (which is probably a bit off topic) and also pay $millions for licence fees (think it was $5m for DLH v Forbes) for lesser fights.

I agree in principal, but HBO appear to be going the same route as SKY and Sentanta by making HBO essentially the home of GBP fighters. Mosley v Collazo (think it was an ESPN PPV) was the only fight that immediately springs to memory where they didn't cover it.

In the US it's the Promoters that appear to be matching the best against the best. Presumably because of the impact MMA has made on PPV numbers.

[Old bones Ian]

We as fans don't stand for losses that often, what would happen if Khan lost?
Some would be on here saying thats him finished.

[Poncey]

Do you not think that's an issue with the British Boxing fan more than the US boxing fan? Especially armchair fans.

I do think we enjoy, in some sadistic way, seeing our sporting heroes lose and then chastise them when they do. Just look at the newspapers for examples of this.

[Captain Hook]

Some are already saying that after a mixed performance v Gomez.

The HOF is full of guys who lost plenty of times, it's not full of guys with padded records who beat stiffs.

In fairness JC has taken on tough opponents like Kessler and Lacy of late and cemented his position as the best SMW, if he hadn't then his record wouldn't have got him anywhere near the HOF.

Sadly Naz was to rich and apathetic to come back and get back into the mix after his loss. Too much is made of the unbeaten records, I agree.

[DavidPayne]

The ten most respected professionals of the last 10 years. Well off the top of my head anyway.

Micky Ward
Arturo Gatti
Kostya Tszyu
Glen Johnson
Evander Holyfield
Shane Mosley
Lovemore N'Dou
Bernard Hopkins
Erik Morales
Johnny Tapia
_______________
Domestically,

Bradley Pryce
Ian Napa
Michael Jennings
David Haye
Carl Thompson
.................

I hold all of the above with respect and affection despite defeats...

[lefthook82]

It is seen as mega important. Especially to the uninitiated. On here we are always quick to talk about how someone gets exposed when they lose. When Juan Diaz lost all I was hearing was that he was a bully and he couldnt bully Nate, etc etc. When Khan loses there will be 10 different topics started withing 5 minutes.

I dont mind 0s but when looking at boxrec I do like to see that a fighter has tried to avenge the loss. I know sometmes politics, lack of public interest etc can prevent this but its not a good look for me when there isnt at least an attempt to right the wrong

Anyways, thats my 2 cents

[Old bones Ian]

Anthony Crolla lost his unbeaten record recently and that was on free TV, so will he be welcomed back by the TV execs?

[DavidPayne]

Ask Matt Ellis.

[Captain Hook]

It was more the performance of Crolla that was a disappointment, but in fairness he's never been that bad before. From what Arnie said he had issues with his blood? Was it blood levels or something, I can't remember now.......I have memory issues.

Anyway, it was more the performance of Crolla than the......

[Autobarn]

It is seen as mega important. Especially to the uninitiated. On here we are always quick to talk about how someone gets exposed when they lose. When Juan Diaz lost all I was hearing was that he was a bully and he couldnt bully Nate, etc etc. When Khan loses there will be 10 different topics started withing 5 minutes.

I dont mind 0s but when looking at boxrec I do like to see that a fighter has tried to avenge the loss. I know sometmes politics, lack of public interest etc can prevent this but its not a good look for me when there isnt at least an attempt to right the wrong

Anyways, thats my 2 cents

well to be fair, Diaz likes to dish it out but doesn't seem able to take it. after the fight he accused Campbell of being on steroids. Diaz is a guy who had two "world champions" quit on him, yet when he gets beaten up he can't seem to understand what's happened.

[banjo]

I've always believed a fighter learns more about himself in defeat than in victory so no I don't believe undefeated records are important. Losing is a part of every sport and the real test is how you handle and come back from defeat.

[lefthook82]

From a TV exec record it looks

Could you imagine Warren trying to sell Augustus v Khan to ITV or to the general uninitiated public. ( I know he has fallen off a bit now, but lets pretend that this is the Augustus that gave a toss and actually tried)

Us Anaroks would know that it would be an excellent learning fight for Khan but try and convince the average Joe that a dude who lost 20 odd times is gonna show Amri Khan a thing or two. Not.Gonna.Happen

The more statistically pleasing the record the easier it is to sell. If unbeaten even better

[observer1]

In recent years the undefeated record has become very important, fighters careers have been built on it, Joe Calzaghe being one of that number, it means everything to guys like him and to some boxing fans also.

Marciano is rated very highly because of his unbeaten record, the '0' has made some blind to the fact that his record was built on fighting guys who were past it...Calzaghe talks of his '10 year reign' when in fact its been very weak...

On the flipside you have Oscar de la Hoya, a man who has a number of losses on his record yet has ducked no-one, a man who has given us great fights...of course he could have sat on his belt for 10 years and been undefeated but he wanted to fight the top guys.

So in this modern era of boxing how much does the '0' really mean, should a fighter be lauded for good matchmaking, it is of couse his body taking the beating or does boxing, if it wants to survive long into the next century need to adjust and actually make the fights the public want to see, win, lose or draw??

Which is why Oscar DLH is Leagues above Calzaghe.

[thepocketrocket]

I would agree mr Observer, but many on here dont rate Oscsr and talk about his defeats, then many(maybe not all) go on to talk about Joe as the secon coming of Godzilla, one of their points being Joe is undefeated.

That logic sucks but many on here will disagree

[observer1]

I would agree mr Observer, but many on here dont rate Oscsr and talk about his defeats, then many(maybe not all) go on to talk about Joe as the secon coming of Godzilla, one of their points being Joe is undefeated.

That logic sucks but many on here will disagree

Yeah best to ignore them. They fail to understand "Quality" is better than "Quantity".

You will notice most of them think England are a good football team, Immigration is going to destroy the world if we don't stop it happening, we are going to get nuked if Iran gets nuclear power etc. etc.

The answer is complicated yet simple my friend.. the only people who believe this BS are those who read the poxy Tabloids.

[thepocketrocket]

Mate, i wont even bother to add, expertley put!!

[Goz]

It does matter but it shouldn't so much.

Obviously a guy who has lost half his fights is tough to sell as quality but 1 or even 2 early 'learning' defeats, who cares?

Simon Brown losing a decision to Marlon Starling early on was a good example of a learning fight, I read an interview with Brown once that stuck with me where he referred to that fight as being of great benefit to him.

All other sport lets individuals or teams cut their teeth against the best - boxing is shite for that.