asdfjkl wrote:All legends have loses on their names. Holyfield, Tyson, Klitschko's, name them. Somehow the Americans abuse it as an excuse to avoid a fighter. For me, guys like Mayweather and Wilder are pussys, but others disagree, I can't do much about it.
Why only Floyd and wilder? What about ggg who protects that 0 too.
GGG wants no part of ward or any other top fighter if its not worth the it.
asdfjkl wrote:All legends have loses on their names. Holyfield, Tyson, Klitschko's, name them. Somehow the Americans abuse it as an excuse to avoid a fighter. For me, guys like Mayweather and Wilder are pussys, but others disagree, I can't do much about it.
Why only Floyd and wilder? What about ggg who protects that 0 too.
GGG wants no part of ward or any other top fighter if its not worth the it.
Lets keep it real now.
I don't know much about the babyleagues. Mayweather is about the only one I heard a bit of since I couldn't get around him because of all the mediahype attention he got. If GGG said hello to me tomorrow I wouldn't have a clue it's him, I don't have a clue what he looks like or where he's from.
It makes me laugh that so many straddle the fence on this subject, and how much of a pussy some are. Winning is the goal, and although you have to accept losses, you don't have to like it. A loss is a failure. Can you come back from it? sure. Don't downplay losses because they count as much as wins.
There have been times where fans treat one loss as a fighter being finished. Cotto had been treated as finished since his first loss to Margarito, but this guy has bounced back tons of times since then. I'd say he's had a damned good career for a fighter that's been finished since 2008. Fans have consistently been putting too much stock into one loss for as long as I've been a member of boxrec.
But while fans have been consistently wrong in overemphasizing a loss, it's also been the case that some fighters don't bounce back from losses as well as they used to. It might be a hybrid of the fact that they make so much money in the few fights at their peak, how far that money spends in certain countries that have been increasingly participant in boxing, and how much less money they can make after they take a loss. It might also be that fighters' confidence is more legitimately damaged after one loss than it used to be, and maybe that's because the internet talks about them so harshly now. Maybe it's because the stubborn, macho need to bounce back is dwindling culturally. Or it could be that the more cases like Gerald McClellan and Magomed Abdusalamov that we see, the more that fighters don't want to end-up like that.
Depends on the context nowadays. If you're popular and people like you a loss can just be a minor set back (Manny Pacquiao, Victor Ortiz). Losing but remaining competitive throughout the fight wins the hearts of the fans (shawn porter, cotto).
However if people hate your guts or you have a style that crowds don't like (bradley, broner) they are much more likely to be super critical and less forgiving.
It also matters if youre a nobody, the loss(es) were a long time ago and you've improved, you're b level or a world class elite.
Both Floyd and ggg are undefeated but if they were to lose the world would react in polar opposite ways.
Lackeos wrote:There have been times where fans treat one loss as a fighter being finished. Cotto had been treated as finished since his first loss to Margarito, but this guy has bounced back tons of times since then. I'd say he's had a damned good career for a fighter that's been finished since 2008. Fans have consistently been putting too much stock into one loss for as long as I've been a member of boxrec.
But while fans have been consistently wrong in overemphasizing a loss, it's also been the case that some fighters don't bounce back from losses as well as they used to. It might be a hybrid of the fact that they make so much money in the few fights at their peak, how far that money spends in certain countries that have been increasingly participant in boxing, and how much less money they can make after they take a loss. It might also be that fighters' confidence is more legitimately damaged after one loss than it used to be, and maybe that's because the internet talks about them so harshly now. Maybe it's because the stubborn, macho need to bounce back is dwindling culturally. Or it could be that the more cases like Gerald McClellan and Magomed Abdusalamov that we see, the more that fighters don't want to end-up like that.
A loss is not always a failure, just as a win is not always success
Some loses are clear and not to be understated such as a long beat down leading to a knockout. Other loses such as the Santa Cruz loss last night should be kept in perspective. Seems like it now feels that frampton should go on to mega fights while LSC should fade into obscurity. That's how the media makes it sound when in fact the fight was close and there would have been no controversy over a Leo win.
If losses weren’t over-emphasised, the “risk versus return” ratio would no longer exist.
Golovkin would have found it easier to participate in fights against big names. Not only against fellow middleweights, but he would have also taken more of a risk with his own career, by agreeing to compromise his own weight in order to face the likes of Canelo and Ward. It’s less risky for GGG to face an opponent that is two weight divisions smaller than himself, than earn a similar payday facing someone like Kovalev at 175lbs.
The same rule applies to other fighters as well, such as Kell Brook, because the Brit has only ever face one genuine world class opponent during his entire lengthy twelve year career.
Manny Pacquiao probably wouldn’t have forced “bigger” men to “fight small” with his with his seemingly constant demands for catch-weight stipulations.
Even Andre Ward is guilty of doing everything he can to protect that zero, because he turned down multiple opportunities to engage in a very lucrative and a very winnable rematch against Carl Froch, simply because he didn’t want to lose home turf advantage. How many times has he faced world-class opposition outside of the USA… or even away from California?
And the list of names goes on-and-on… as it's all about minimising the risk of defeat!
At this moment in time, there are too many fighters granted an honorary rite of passage to the pound-for-pound elite or Hall-of-Famer greatness by casual boxing fans, simply because they manage to remain unbeaten, whilst passing the proverbial “eyeball test” against second-tier opposition, without having faced genuine talent… and when they do, they often get BADLY exposed (i.e. Lucian Bute, Jeff Lacy, Jorge Luis González, Virgil Hill etc.).
I feel they are. Top fighters lose to each other all the time but when it happens now, the loser automatically becomes a bum or a hype job. The problem is, top fights between top fighters are becoming a rare thing these days and when they do happen, they reach such a fever pitch of anticipation when things dont go our way, we complain.
