Importance of Fighter's Losses

[Ambling Alp]

I wanted to discuss something that came up on another thread. Apparently some of us view losses quite differently.

When rating fighters, how much emphasis should be on their losses?

I believe that you have to take hard look at a fighter's losses when rating him. You can often learn a lot about a fighter by his losses. Sometimes they expose his limitations, ie-Not be able to handle certain styles of opponents. Sometimes losses simply show that a fighter was not as good as the fighter he lost to. A lot of losses should be a red flag.

Of course who the loss is to means a lot. For example, a close decision loss to a prime Sugar Ray Robinson is not the same as a loss to ordinary fighters.

The stage of a fighter's career is crucial. Losses when a fighter is old (and/or been in a lot of tough fights) is not the same as a loss when the fighter is close to his prime. Likewise, losing a decision in your 3rd pro fight is not the same as a loss that was close to your prime. Of course you have to look at the stages in the opponent's career as well.

Of course things like bad decisions, premature stoppages, taking a fight on short notice etc. have to be taken into consideration as well.

If losses don't count, but wins do, consider these examples:
Johnny Risko beat Loughran,Max Baer, George Godfrey, and Jack Sharkey. Wouldn't that make him a legend?
Andy Price beat both Carlos Palomino and Pipino Cuevas. Does that mean Price was one of the great welterweights?

I'm not saying that a fighter with a high winning % is automatically great. We have all seen many fighters who have been matched with almost entirely carefully chosen opponents. Then when they fight someone good they get beat. However, it's the losses they suffered when they finally did fight someone good that really indicates that they really were not that good.

I think that you have to consider all the factors previously mention pertaining to the losses, and balance that with the quality and quantity of his wins.

Wanted to hear what others have to say regarding this. I thought this would be an interesting discussion.

[BoxBuzz]

It's a very interesting topic. Sometimes it's just that a lesser overall fighter has a better fighters number. For example, Tarver lives much of his career specifically studying and inventing a way to beat RJJr, but he is not the better fighter. He's what I would call a "boutique" champion.

Another dynamic what does a loss do to a fighter? Does it neutralize his spirit? Or does it just piss him off and make him determined to get better? Lewis seemed to ask himself to step it up when he took a loss. Hamed? Not so much.

It's a great dynamic for debate, and it calls into question "are developed skills simply a rubick's cube to be solved?" If so are their fighters who are good at that, and so does that ability add a dimension to their legacy? I think Monzon fits into this category. I think when he took a loss of even one round it just asked him to fight and think more effectively. Robinson fits in this mold as well.

Louis always thrived when he was challenged. The Conn fight is an example.

Ali built the greatest portion of his legacy on a loss. I wonder how Marciano would have done with one under his belt?

Duran may be a great example of a guy that for many years seemed to learn from his losses and his "efficacy" rating goes up and down as he "wins a few, loses a few". Just like a great artist who may simply put an "average" painting in storage as he goes back to work on some more masterpieces, while chalking it up to an "experimental moment". And NOT losing his belief that he is a great artist. EG....Leonard, Benetiz, Hearns, Hagler. Even in some significant losses he appears to track neutral or ever so slightly up or down in terms of his actual effectiveness. Some near losses seemed to fire him up to get back into it and not let it bother him. He and Hearns seemed to share a quality of being nearly "un psyche able" Regardless of their "losses".

As I often do I have taken this topic into the rabbit hole. But I think it has some depth and can be pondered from several angles.

Alp, did that make any sense to you?

[Controversial]

Unfortunately people focus too much on defeats. There are so many variables involved in a fight that no matter how good someone is no win is 100% guaranteed.

There's no shame in losing, sometimes a fighter needs to lose to improve.

[Expug]

Good topic Alp.
I think when rating a fighter while looking at his losses, it depends of course on who he lost to and how he performed.
We all know that in the past,fighters who fought constantly and against tough opposition, accumulated losses here and there.
If they fought well and put asses in seats, promoters would use them again regularly on cards.
But, more to the question,I think its important also not to constantly dismiss an outstanding performance by an underdog against a favorite by making excuses for the bigger name.A wins a win and should be regarded as such. Unless of course there is an extreme situation that caused an especially bad outing.
The most important thing when it comes to wins and losses is how the fighter himself regards the loss.
Does he fall apart after a loss? Totally lose confidence? Or, does he act like Fritzie Zicic did after one of his many losses.
Fritzie used to say,"what the hell,so I ran second".He could lose to Joe Blow one day, laugh that loss off and then beat Charley Burley or Henry Armstrong the next. He was a great fighter with a great attitude.

[jimglen]

Well I'll be the first to throw my grandfather too the scrutiny... Collins aside, unless he's willing to look at it academically as Ambling Alp has stated - heres hoping.

Bert Gilroy - Fight Record
119 - 86 wins (44ko’s), 25 losses, 8 draws.
6 year 41 fight winning streak, mid-1937 - 43
(of the losses, 12 were suffered in his first 4 years, his novice years starting as a 15 year old boy, and of the remain 13 losses, 7 of them met with “documented” question or controversy in either decision or circumstances surrounding the fights, as did 3 of his draws).

Bert suffered only 2 serious beatings in his career,
1) Gilroy/Woodcock (HW) II - 1946
2) Gilroy/Cerdan - 1947

as stated above, 12 in his novice years and some of the remainders questioned, ie Mills stoppage Gilroy ahead on points, Shaw I - 1945, Gilroy thought to have won, fighting above his weight and so on.

favourite to beat McAvoy, 1939 -43 and again in 45 when Mac came back...

you know the rest from there.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I rate good losses higher than useless wins. I mean should Luis Rodriguez be punished for being Emile Griffith's equal because some judges said he lost 3 out of 4?

In other cases losses are dominant wins, Whitaker vs Ramirez & Oscar just to site two examples. Everything is in the context of how and when it took place. I have no issue tossing aside all of Duran's losses after Hagler. His record was already etched in stone long before he lost to Robbie Sims or Pat Lawlor.

At least for me, a great fighter reaches a stage where there isn't a thing they can do to lower their standing, but they can possibly still raise it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I rate good losses higher than useless wins. I mean should Luis Rodriguez be punished for being Emile Griffith's equal because some judges said he lost 3 out of 4?

In other cases losses are dominant wins, Whitaker vs Ramirez & Oscar just to site two examples. Everything is in the context of how and when it took place. I have no issue tossing aside all of Duran's losses after Hagler. His record was already etched in stone long before he lost to Robbie Sims or Pat Lawlor.

At least for me, a great fighter reaches a stage where there isn't a thing they can do to lower their standing, but they can possibly still raise it.

Wholeheartedly agree with the last line, but, Hey-Zeus, that's a bit harsh to call Whitaker's loss to De La Hoya a, "total domination by the losing fighter." I had it for De La Hoya by a point, twice. I don't see how you could've had it 116-112 (my minimum idea of a dominant result in rounds) or wider for Whitaker...?

[dberry]

Sometimes a loss can say a lot of positives about a guy,he's not willing to cancell a fight because of a sniffle, because the opponent weighed in two weight devisions over and refused to sweat of any weight. It can also show a positive mentality towards taking fights early in ones carreer based on gaining experience rather than keeping a perfect record.

If a fighter is fighting out of the blue corner with a few losses to his name, and is fighting the promoters undefeated hot shot or hometown favourite, then he virtualy has to win every round to get a draw. So loosing to a home town decision just becomes another loss on the record.

Looking at most guys with a perfect record and most of their fights tend to be against opponents who had little chance of winning, to pad their records and remain undefeated.

If someone constantly keeps fighting people they know they're a shoe in to beat, then they surely are nothing more than bullies. They really aren't fighters they are more like insecure ore egotisticle cowards.

[Collins2000]

Well I'll be the first to throw my grandfather too the scrutiny... Collins aside, unless he's willing to look at it academically as Ambling Alp has stated - heres hoping.

Bert Gilroy - Fight Record
119 - 86 wins (44ko’s), 25 losses, 8 draws.
6 year 41 fight winning streak, mid-1937 - 43
(of the losses, 12 were suffered in his first 4 years, his novice years starting as a 15 year old boy, and of the remain 13 losses, 7 of them met with “documented” question or controversy in either decision or circumstances surrounding the fights, as did 3 of his draws).

Bert suffered only 2 serious beatings in his career,
1) Gilroy/Woodcock (HW) II - 1946
2) Gilroy/Cerdan - 1947

as stated above, 12 in his novice years and some of the remainders questioned, ie Mills stoppage Gilroy ahead on points, Shaw I - 1945, Gilroy thought to have won, fighting above his weight and so on.

favourite to beat McAvoy, 1939 -43 and again in 45 when Mac came back...

you know the rest from there.

More than willing to look at it academically, Jimbo. It's never been me that got emotional when discussing Bert's career.

First thing we need to correct is the following statement:

6 year 41 fight winning streak, mid-1937 - 43

Considering you claim to be an expert and to have helped write a book, I find it amazing that you would post such a statement.

Bert did not have a 41 fight winning streak. Please correct that and then we can continue our academic debate.

[jaclem2]

... for an example to add to the discussion here...most of kid gavilan's losses came at the end of his career, when he was all finished.....but look the number of losses when he was in his prime....and then look at to whom they were . and remember he tangled with good lightweights (ike williams) and some middleweights while fighting several times a year.

[jimglen]

6 years 'undefeated' mid 1937 - 43, 38wins, 3draws...

there you go Collins.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I rate good losses higher than useless wins. I mean should Luis Rodriguez be punished for being Emile Griffith's equal because some judges said he lost 3 out of 4?

In other cases losses are dominant wins, Whitaker vs Ramirez & Oscar just to site two examples. Everything is in the context of how and when it took place. I have no issue tossing aside all of Duran's losses after Hagler. His record was already etched in stone long before he lost to Robbie Sims or Pat Lawlor.

At least for me, a great fighter reaches a stage where there isn't a thing they can do to lower their standing, but they can possibly still raise it.

Wholeheartedly agree with the last line, but, Hey-Zeus, that's a bit harsh to call Whitaker's loss to De La Hoya a, "total domination by the losing fighter." I had it for De La Hoya by a point, twice. I don't see how you could've had it 116-112 (my minimum idea of a dominant result in rounds) or wider for Whitaker...?

I had 9-3, my disdain for watching Whitaker get screwed again could lead to an exaggeration to say domination. But as you've told me before, I honestly can't take any card seriously that has Oscar ahead.

[dberry]

You make some good points, Saad, I totaly agree that a good loss is better than a useless win. And, hey, it should also be taken into account that a fighter may be having an off day at the office.

I don't agree with the Trinidad-DeLaHoya decision though, I remember that fight clearly. I watched it sober and never took my eyes off the screen. I hadd DeLaHoya cofortably by two rounds. So did a couple of local judges, one calling the decision a travesty.

[BoxBuzz]

I rate good losses higher than useless wins.

If one can open their mind to this concept alone, you are miles ahead of most who show interest in this sport. And when the fighter HIMSELF has this attitude they usually can parlay that attribute to a fantastic advantage over his opponents.

Find an example of a fighter who comes off of a loss to face a fighter who is attempting to "take advantage" of a weak moment, and the former "loser" takes that fighter to school, and you have an example of what I"m talking about. Those are usually pretty special fighters. They can look at a loss objectively and use it to their own advantage. Too bad that these days the tolerance for even a good loss seems to be so minimal.

The attitude of the fans toward good losses, more than any other single dynamic has diminished this sport IMHO. It's become cliche that only the undefeated fighters get serious consideration from the fans. Rare exceptions may still exist such as Glencoffe Johnson, who at least many fight fans will regard as a serious threat in most any match he shows up to. Regardless of his record of losses along the way.

It seems even the neanderthal MMA fans have more tolerance for losses.

[dberry]

I rate good losses higher than useless wins.

If one can open their mind to this concept alone, you are miles ahead of most who show interest in this sport. And when the fighter HIMSELF has this attitude they usually can parlay that attribute to a fantastic advantage over his opponents.

Find an example of a fighter who comes off of a loss to face a fighter who is attempting to "take advantage" of a weak moment, and the former "loser" takes that fighter to school, and you have an example of what I"m talking about. Those are usually pretty special fighters. They can look at a loss objectively and use it to their own advantage. Too bad that these days the tolerance for even a good loss seems to be so minimal.

The attitude of the fans toward good losses, more than any other single dynamic has diminished this sport IMHO. It's become cliche that only the undefeated fighters get serious consideration from the fans. Rare exceptions may still exist such as Glencoffe Johnson, who at least many fight fans will regard as a serious threat in most any match he shows up to. Regardless of his record of losses along the way.

It seems even the neanderthal MMA fans have more tolerance for losses.

A good example of this would be Kostya Tzyu comming back from his loss to Vince Phillips. A lot of people wrote him off or dissmissed him as an also ran, but he learnt from that loss and came back all the better for it.

Lennox Lewis, Terry Norris, most of the current top cruiser weights. The list goes on and most of the fighters on the list will be exciting fighters.

[BoxBuzz]

great example. Who believes Vince could have accomplished that twice? Very few, and as I understand it Vince played hard to get when rematch was discussed. And though Kostya pursued it he did not obsess on it. I believe it was because he felt he could have set it right and not due to any hesitancy based on past performance.

True or not, that's an example of self confidence post loss that I am talking about. (I happen to think that any rematch would have borne out Kostya's confidence on this issue).

[Goodnight, Irene]

I don't know if I'd necessarily include Lennox Lewis in that category. I think he was developing before the loss to McCall, & would've improved without the defeat, making it coincidental.

[BoxBuzz]

I don't know if I'd necessarily include Lennox Lewis in that category. I think he was developing before the loss to McCall, & would've improved without the defeat, making it coincidental.

Do you think he gained anything from it? Or that it showed us something about him? "Important" is a subjective term certainly. Many of his fans point to "no unavenged losses" as a point of pride.

[jimglen]

If one can open their mind to this concept alone, you are miles ahead of most who show interest in this sport. And when the fighter HIMSELF has this attitude they usually can parlay that attribute to a fantastic advantage over his opponents.

one of the most intriguing things I'll never forget when writing and researching was meeting Peter Murray, a Glasgow playwrite who wrote the play "the Boothies" a stage production about life in the Boxing Booths. Peter stated for all the hardmen and competition fighters faced in the ring, he couldn't believe how he found fighters to be without animosity and envy for fellow fighter's success and career status. Rather they supported each other and recognized that (among the top class), it could have been anyone of a number of them that might have reached the same heights, the fighters KNEW who they were and who their top foes were, quite often not much in it -the difference. More down to ownership, politics and the business of boxing!

a look through my posts will demonstrate how I have tried to reiterate the importance of such career realities among Top Fighters, it's good to see an honest thread about this truth.

thanks Alp, Buzz and other such serious fans of Boxing, it's fighters, their lagacy and accurate breakdown of their fights

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You make some good points, Saad, I totaly agree that a good loss is better than a useless win. And, hey, it should also be taken into account that a fighter may be having an off day at the office.

I don't agree with the Trinidad-DeLaHoya decision though, I remember that fight clearly. I watched it sober and never took my eyes off the screen. I hadd DeLaHoya cofortably by two rounds. So did a couple of local judges, one calling the decision a travesty.

I thought Oscar won that fight as well, though I would be lying if I said I cared that he lost after the way he "fought" down the stretch.

I was talking about Pea/Oscar.

Edit: I also think there is a difference between learning from a loss and having a good loss. Lewis definitely became better from his two defeats, but neither are a good thing for his resume.

Touching on what Buzz said that is absolutely true, the fans approach to W's & L's is horrid nowadays. God love this site and the resources that are just at your fingertips, but it leads the uninformed to feel informed on far too many occasions.

I was in a heated debate with one such individual on my man Jesse Burnett and his less than stellar looking record. That man was robbed enough that he had every right to quit.

[BoxBuzz]

Saad, I thought Oscar beat Felix as well and didn't like how he performed at the end but I have far less disdain for that performance than most folks here. Answer me this, why should one portion of a fight have more "gravitas" than another? Hypothetically if you win 7 rounds in a row then choose to take it easy, (after all boxing is a "hard job") where's the problem? The opposite never seems to garner such a critical response. In fact coming from behind is usually cheered.

Is it that old cliche "what have done for me lately" that applies here?

I admit I'm not consistent in my logic on this, because I am one of the few who tout that a champion should be spotted some "free consideration" when defending his title. But in the case of winning rounds = winning a fight, I think it should be an option for any fighter to get it over early and coast if they wish.

But it is a very unpopular position to hold.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I have no answer, Oscar won the fight imo. It wasn't difficult to score and it was only reasonably close because he allowed it to be.

In fact I paid my friend the $250 I had bet him on the fight before the decision. I guess my aggravation for his antics down the stretch are more for the sport than anything else. That was a huge fight and I remember Leonard/Duran & Leonard/Hearns living up to the hype. He would have been a fool to engage Trinidad when he could just outbox him, but that doesn't stop my drunk ass from wanting him too.

None of that means Oscar didn't deserve the nod, I 100% believe he did.

[Controversial]

Boxing is the only sport I can think of where losses are analysed, scrutinised and dissected in minute detail. Any top sportsman from any other sport can be classed as the greatest ever and still be beaten without their defeats ever being mentioned. Even the top fighters in UFC get beaten, sometimes in only a few seconds by fighters less capable than them.

Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker for you amercians) are examples of probably the best in their field, and they all get beaten on a fairly regular basis, sometimes by people rated a lot lower than them. Then there are team sports, Brazil (football), baseball or basketball teams that lose games to teams not as good as them.

But a boxer, like Lennox Lewis who in my opinion was capable of beating any heavyweight thats ever lived, gets slagged off for his losses.

[granberry]

Boxing is the only sport I can think of where losses are analysed, scrutinised and dissected in minute detail. Any top sportsman from any other sport can be classed as the greatest ever and still be beaten without their defeats ever being mentioned. Even the top fighters in UFC get beaten, sometimes in only a few seconds by fighters less capable than them.

Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker for you amercians) are examples of probably the best in their field, and they all get beaten on a fairly regular basis, sometimes by people rated a lot lower than them. Then there are team sports, Brazil (football), baseball or basketball teams that lose games to teams not as good as them.

But a boxer, like Lennox Lewis who in my opinion was capable of beating any heavyweight thats ever lived, gets slagged off for his losses.

All good until the last sentence.

A glass chin is a glass chin. Lewis had a glass chin.

[Controversial]

A glass chin is a glass chin. Lewis had a glass chin.

I disagree. He fought and beat too many big punchers. If his chin was that bad he would have suffered more knockdowns and defeats.