Which promoter/s brought in this unbeaten bollocks?

[Jeff Thomas]

Which promoter/s brought in this unbeaten bollocks in the first place?

I admit I was suckered in to begin with. The first fighter I really thought was unbeatable was Naseem Hamed. Also obviously you had Eubank, etc etc.... I just don't see why fighters/ fans/ promoters are so obsessed with that '0'. No one gets to the end of there career unbeaten unless they have completely avoided most of the live challenges available to them at the time.

It is a fact that every single unbeaten fighter in the world can be beaten right now - so why is the qudos given for unbeaten records when an unbeaten record is simply an indication that a fighter has been well guided. The stigma linked to defeat in boxing is too strong. Khan for example lodging an attempt to get his fight result overturned, simply ridiculous....

Get back in the gym and improve and over turn it yourself.

Boxing has to stop been about unbeaten records, and start been about meaningful fights. That way when I fighter gets beaten then like the good old days- people can shrug it off as a bad night at the office or a poor performance rather then saying the fighter is a fraud etc etc.... Every fighter that pertains to be unbeateble is a fraud, that is a definate because everyone can be beaten.

~Thoughts? Less coffee?

[veriton]

i blame lester jacobs

[Newport Daz]

I remember Euabnk was on his world tour and had to stay unbeaten to make massive money, so it became really important then. I would imagine an unbeaten record was always important to promoters, but modern day promoters take it to the extreme.

I think it's probably important to fighters too. In Nigel Benn's book he said he went from making hundreds of thousands of pounds when he fought Micheal Watson to making 30k for his next few fights when he went to America.

An unbeaten record is the most over-rated thing in boxing. Someone like Cus D'Amato used to say that an unbeaten record just means you haven't fought the best avaiable competion yet. it's very true too.

[Kit]

I don’t think this is solely down to promoters.

The ticket buying public are a fickle bunch. Nothing hurts a fighters ticket sales more than a defeat, no matter how good the fight, how close the decision or the step up in class. Unfortunately this is a fact.

Alex Arthur was a big sell in Scotland until Gomez beat him. No matter what he went on to achieve after that, the fan base never returned on mass.

I know of many examples of fighters who have unbeaten records with decent followings that dwindled significantly after a solitary loss.

People in general like to associate themselves with winners. An unbeaten record to the non boxing fan means they are associated with some invincible fighter and well worth spending your hard earned £40 on, and telling everyone who you are mates with.

One loss and parting with that £40 is not so justifiable.

At most shows, in all reality there are not too many hardcore boxing fans; The ticket buyers are there to watch the watch the person they purchased the ticket from win. Promoters supply that demand.

Maybe if the bills were not stacked with the prospects in one corner and losers in the other and reasonably priced? Then maybe some of the paying public may get hooked and attracted back?

However the more even the contests the more likely the ticket seller is to get beat. Promoters rely heavily on their unbeaten ticket sellers to sell out their shows for them. So it’s a hard cycle to break.

[deadpan]

Lester Jacobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cracking post Veriton. But it's a fine point from Jeff in the first place. UFC has moved the goalposts regarding the sacred '0'.

[Jeff Thomas]

If I ever get into promotion I'll change the sport entirely. Big statement but thats what will happen.

[LeedsLad]

I think it began when fighters stopped fighting so regularly, or when lads were paid big bucks to come out of the amateurs.

There's countless fighters in the modern era that were simply never the same after a loss, despite accomplishing plenty afterwards, Mosley is a good example of this.

[Jeff Thomas]

There's also the Internet to consider, minor points are debated ad nauseam and we're extremely hypocritical, we groan about unbeaten tags but have twice written Khan off after defeats and generally go for the 'He's lost, he's crap and going nowhere' line when a '0' goes.

Two different sets of people maybe?

[SteveDow]

Interesting discussion. I guess an unbeaten fighter tends to exude more of an aura of invincibility which then generates more hype. Take Edwin Valero for example. He was 27-0 with 27 knockouts. Even though his record was highly padded, the madia were able to build him up an an indestructable force which could not be stopped. A beaten fighter tends not to have that aura, unless it's someone like Manny Pacquiao whose defeats cames years earlier.

[veriton]

Lester Jacobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cracking post Veriton. But it's a fine point from Jeff in the first place. UFC has moved the goalposts regarding the sacred '0'.

UFC has definitely shed some of the allure but there are so many different ways to lose an MMA fight that a loss can't mean as much.

It's the belts in boxing that have caused this though isn't it? Before the WBO, WBF, inter-continental gubbins then it was much harder to protect yourself if you wanted to get somewhere. you had to fight other contenders.

all that was lost and then you had the likes of good old lester, damon hague and my personal favourite steve roberts building up lovely looking records. there are too many easy options so that a fighter doesnt have to take a loseable fight if he doesnt want

[Dirk Kelly]

Someone made a great point about fans. I remember Colin Kenna having hundreds upon hundreds of followers, then he got beat by Sprott and they dwindled. A good but not spectauclar turnout when he fought Krence then I think it has dwindled since even when he won the southern area there wasn't many of us there but in his first defence sold out the Guildhall.

So unless there is a title or an 0 then fans don't come. And so if that will be down to the marketing machine, with an 0 or a title there is more stories, publicity etc to be gained or more headlines on the poster.

[milpool]

Agree with you Jeff, 100%.

I think for hardcore fans the '0' is not very significant. It's when the promoters are trying to rope in the casual fan when it becomes all important.
We know that a fighter isn't a washed up bum because he has a few blemishes on his record but it's difficult to sell that to the armchair fan. I think this is fairly obvious in the whole Tyson Fury/Channel 5 thing.

Also agree that the introduction of all these bogus 'world' titles allows a fighter to dodge the best names and just focus on a minor belt and then defend it a million times against club fighters that would never get anywhere near a genuine world top 10.

[Quixall]

I personally think it is bollocks, but it's a part of the modern game and to some extent has been the case in the past. I was watching an interview with Larry Holmes the other day and the interviewer suggested to Holmes that the Spinks result was manipulated because they didn't want Holmes to take or equal Marciano's record and Larry said " There you go, you just said it......." and it clearly mean't a lot to him that he, in his eyes anyway, had been denied an achievement through boxing politics. It's clear to me that if you are fighting the best as your career develops and remain unbeaten, then the "0" is important and can be used as a marketing tool, plus, it is likely to indicate your talent. However, if you do fight the best as you go along, invariably you will come unstuck at least once or twice, so to remain undefeated in a strong division is highly unlikely. What i have no time for are fighters who pad out records and avoid the best fighters and then claim that their "0" indicates a supreme talent and a claim to be the best. One candidate that sticks out here would be Calzaghe, a very good fighter, but someone who didn't fight the best or fighters at their primes. He gives great credence to the fact that he left the game unbeaten, but he never fought Jones or Hopkins in their prime, he could have faced Tarver, Glen Johnson and even Clinton Woods at 175lbs. The only risky fight he took was Kessler and if you believed the hype Jeff Lacy. So here is a fighter who had a good but not great career that to some degree rests on the fact that he remained undefeated, when in truth, had he gone to America and put himself on the line say 5 years earlier, he may have lost to the best but would have come away with more qudos, simply because he was prepared to mix it with the best at the time. Also, people like Nassem Hamed and Mike Tyson were mentally defeated after recieving losses on their records. Naseem Hamed lost respect, not because he lost, but because he didn't seek to redeem that loss to Barrera and then go on to fight the likes of Marquez and Morales, which had he done so, regardless of the results, people would have acknowledged his intention to fight the very best and he would have re-gained credability and respect. If your are fighting the best and you remain undefeated for a time, then it can mean something, if your dodging the best and filling out your record to preserve your undefeated status, then it means jack shit and most people can see and tell the difference.

[milpool]

Interesting point about Holmes, if he had beaten Spinks and equalled Marciano's record, and then went on to beat it, do you think he would have come out of retirement to face Tyson? Or would he have retired permenantly to bask in the glory?
Maybe this is a whole new issue for a different thread but it has always had me wondering.

[Wake up call]

If I ever get into promotion I'll change the sport entirely. Big statement but thats what will happen.

And you can employ me to be your press guy

[Quixall]

Interesting point about Holmes, if he had beaten Spinks and equalled Marciano's record, and then went on to beat it, do you think he would have come out of retirement to face Tyson? Or would he have retired permenantly to bask in the glory?
Maybe this is a whole new issue for a different thread but it has always had me wondering.

It is an interesting point and one i have an opinion on............

I think losing the undefeated tag hurt Holmes badly, he felt he was treated harshly by the boxing establishment and everyone knows that Holmes has a slight chip on his shoulder when it comes to how the boxing world percieved him as a fighter. He was seen as a fighter that came to the party too late, that he got the tail end of the "glorious" era of the 1970's with Ali, Norton, Frazier and Foreman, that his opposition was weaker and in a way they never forgave him for beating up Ali. These myths became fact and people totally under-estimated Holmes for the great fighter that he was, something that is now rightly being re-visited and rectified. Had the Tyson fight come up with his place in the pantheon of the undefeated fighter secured, then no, i don't believe he would have taken the Tyson fight, but once that undefeated record was gone, then he saw the Tyson fight as simply a very good way to earn a lot of money. Put it this way, Holmes didn't stop fighting until he was 52 years of age and i don't think that would have been the case had he preserved that unbeaten record.

[Wrists]

Richard 'The Secret' Williams

[stujones]

It wasn't exactly brought in. Fans, writers and pundits made a big deal of Ray Robinson's unbeaten run, Marciano's run, JCC's streak of 89 fights without a reverse was huge for the fans and media, people wanted it to continue. The fact Ali and Frazier were both unbeaten going into their first fight was a bit part of the promotion as it had never happened before for the world heavyweight title.

For casual fans, and even some hard core ones, the '0' will always appeal because if you don't know what you're on about you can say 'Well he's never lost has he?' when discussing a fighter.

Here in the UK SN have terminated contracts in the past after two losses, they've also kept people on, Enzo, and there is no fixed rule.

There's also the TV people to consider, do you think they would be happier with a fight between a guy who is 25-4 and one who is 29-3 that is a genuine 50-50 bout but doesn't have a title on the line or one between someone that has run to 26-0 and an opponent with a 14-0 record with a tinpot title on the line?

There's also the Internet to consider, minor points are debated ad nauseam and we're extremely hypocritical, we groan about unbeaten tags but have twice written Khan off after defeats and generally go for the 'He's lost, he's crap and going nowhere' line when a '0' goes.

Great post, as you noted its not a new thing. TV has a massive role to play aswell as promoters in the fascination with the 0. Mike Tyson's early career - he was always hyped by the TV commentators as the "undefeated, undisputed".

[loaded_gloves]

Holmes would've taken the Tyson fight no matter what. Holmes loved fighting and loved million dollar paydays even more.

[winkveron]

I'd rather see a load of wars between guys who are all 30-5, than a guy who is 40-0 knocking over a load of bums.

[Glyn Leach]

If I ever get into promotion I'll change the sport entirely. Big statement but thats what will happen.

And you can employ me to be your press guy

I'll be your matchmaker Jeff. Trust me, I'll get your fighters plenty of losses

[forcefraser]

The "0" is like a good looking Virgin, attractive, alluring and something that most people want to smash.

We don't know how they'll react to a hard pounding. Will it be a bloody mess that puts them off the game for life, or will it be a dodgy points decision that demands another crack at it? (I'm talking boxing, not the virgin)

[Insider]

The "0" is like a good looking Virgin, attractive, alluring and something that most people want to smash.

We don't know how they'll react to a hard pounding. Will it be a bloody mess that puts them off the game for life, or will it be a dodgy points decision that demands another crack at it? (I'm talking boxing, not the virgin)

Quality Analogy!!!!

[Londonirish]

The "0" is like a good looking Virgin, attractive, alluring and something that most people want to smash.

We don't know how they'll react to a hard pounding. Will it be a bloody mess that puts them off the game for life, or will it be a dodgy points decision that demands another crack at it? (I'm talking boxing, not the virgin)

Quality Analogy!!!!