Good Losses and Bad Ones

[keithmoonhangover]

There's something strange on this forum. Losses that should have been damning to a boxer's standing are mysteriously forgiven or even ignored. It's like these good losses never happened.

Then there are others, which are so horrendously bad that it pretty much ruins the boxer's record.

Good: Klitschko against Purrity. Beaten all over the ring by a journeyman, but it's just ignored.

Bad: Hamed's loss to Barrera. It's like the rest of his career meant nothing and his only loss, to a Hall of Famer in his prime is an unforgivable loss.

[oogiebe]

Maybe re title the thread, "Good Arguments, and Bad Ones." Seems many posters move the goal posts based on their own fandom or hatred of the fighter in discussion.

[HomicideHenry]

I don't think anyone is saying that the loss to Ross Purrity wasn't bad. What everyone is saying however is that it is a forgivable loss for a couple of reasons:

-Vladimir Klitschko was absolutely winning that fight round after round but ended up gassing out cuz he threw everything but the kitchen sink at a notoriously tough man kind of in the Randall Cobb category of toughness.

-Klitschko unlike many people who had bad losses not only rebounded but improved as time went on. Had he had the horrible loss and never quite improved he never would have become heavyweight champion let alone have nearly 20 title defenses.

-It was relatively early on in his career when the only two men of consequence he had fought up until that point were Jerry Halsted and Everett Martin. It's not necessarily in his prime years when the loss happened even though he did have 24 bouts or so at the time.

-Ross Puritty himself was not some horrible journeyman like everyone is making him out to be. He was robbed against Tommy Morrison and he actually knocked out Joe Hipp, and of course he went the distance with many men who became top contenders or later became champions themselves. He was a spoiler much like Bert Cooper and in the case of Vladimir Klitschko one can argue his management picked the wrong man to try to get a win over.

Yes it's a bad loss there's no two ways about it but it's also a forgivable one for the reasons I've outlined. But as I pointed out on another thread if it's unforgivable, there are multiple instances of good or great fighters who had unforgivable losses who are considered just as good as Klitschko or better. For example, Max Schmeling getting knocked out in the first round by a light heavyweight by the name of Gipsy Daniels prior to him winning the heavyweight title against Jack Sharkey.

When you look at it from that perspective that is a hell of a lot more embarrassing than simply gassing out against somebody who was practically impossible to knock out. But if you was to ask somebody like our friendly neighborhood curmudgeon Alp, somehow the loss to Ross Puritty is worse because somehow magically Max Schmeling is better than Vladimir Klitschko simply because of the Joe Louis fights.

[DrDuke]

It's stupid to be obssessed with downs of a fighter, when his ups are much higher. Klit lost to Purrity, when he was raw stylistically, buy when he got his game polished enough, he was defeating guys better than Purrity for 10 years.

[gilgamesh]

There's something strange on this forum. Losses that should have been damning to a boxer's standing are mysteriously forgiven or even ignored. It's like these good losses never happened.

Then there are others, which are so horrendously bad that it pretty much ruins the boxer's record.

Good: Klitschko against Purrity. Beaten all over the ring by a journeyman, but it's just ignored.

Bad: Hamed's loss to Barrera. It's like the rest of his career meant nothing and his only loss, to a Hall of Famer in his prime is an unforgivable loss.

What forum are you reading? Because Klitschko's loss to Purrity is damn sure not ignored around here

[Ezzard]

I'm not sure the thesis of the thread is right.

Jersey Joe Walcott got beaten by quite a few lower tier fighters. So what? He was able to beat Ezzard Charles Are we really going to say his career was poor because of this? Or he wasn't a top fighter?

Most people say well he wasn't managed right. He wasn't eating properly etc... If you've read about him you know this.

But Walcott is a popular fighter among fans.

Take someone polarising like Duran, Hamed or Tyson. They have die-hard fans and die-hard distractors. People throw out all reason.

Duran, Wlad, Lennox and Tyson lost to fighters that looking back we can see they were clearly superior to. One set of people see extenuating circumstances. Others want to sling mud.

[Controversial]

Anyone can have an off night or pull a masterclass out the bag. Lots of fighters were lucky to get decisions they shouldn’t have got, another ref might’ve stopped Fury when he was poleaxed by Wilder. These decisions can change a win into a loss quite easily. Marciano was said to be very lucky to get the decision against Ted Lowry, that could’ve quite easily have been a loss and then how would Marciano be ranked now, a lot lower than he is now. Duran lost to Laing who was knocked out in his next fight. Lots of grey areas in boxing and results don't always tell the full story.

[Ambling Alp II]

What we should do is take consideration the quality of the opponent, and to a lesser extent how competitive the fight was. The stage of a fighter's career obviously has to be considered. (i.e. Ray Robinson's loss to Joey Archer)

Hamed's loss to Barrera should be factored in. It showed some of his limitations. However, that isn't nearly as bad as Klitschko's losses.

Ross Purrity was a journeyman. Sanders and Brewster simply weren't that good. Those losses have to be weighed heavily against him. The big win he should count for him. The problem is that he didn't have many.

This isn't the same as Ray Mercer's losses against Holyfield and Lewis. Mercer fought well in those fights against great opponents. Could have got the decision against Lewis.
Now the loss to Jesse Ferguson is a different story. That loss hurt's Mercer's case quite a bit.

There are human beings. Nobody was always great. We should weigh the plusses against minuses, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Controversial]

Ferguson was no mug though. He went 13-0 (10 KOS) before losing to Carl Williams who was coming off his title loss to Holmes, he dropped Williams in that fight. Ferguson joins a long list of HWs who blew hot and cold but was a capable fighter on his best day, especially if his opponent wasn't on form.

[Ezzard]

Anyone can have an off night or pull a masterclass out the bag. Lots of fighters were lucky to get decisions they shouldn’t have got, another ref might’ve stopped Fury when he was poleaxed by Wilder. These decisions can change a win into a loss quite easily. Marciano was said to be very lucky to get the decision against Ted Lowry, that could’ve quite easily have been a loss and then how would Marciano be ranked now, a lot lower than he is now. Duran lost to Laing who was knocked out in his next fight. Lots of grey areas in boxing and results don't always tell the full story.

Exactly. If you say Duran had an off-night people will kick and scream for post after post. But saying that takes nothing away from Kirk. Lots of greats can have off-nights and just about get the win. Laing was too good for that.

Nobody thinks Kirk was a greater fighter than Duran so it's pretty obvious what people mean when they say this.

[Controversial]

Anyone can have an off night or pull a masterclass out the bag. Lots of fighters were lucky to get decisions they shouldn’t have got, another ref might’ve stopped Fury when he was poleaxed by Wilder. These decisions can change a win into a loss quite easily. Marciano was said to be very lucky to get the decision against Ted Lowry, that could’ve quite easily have been a loss and then how would Marciano be ranked now, a lot lower than he is now. Duran lost to Laing who was knocked out in his next fight. Lots of grey areas in boxing and results don't always tell the full story.

Exactly. If you say Duran had an off-night people will kick and scream for post after post. But saying that takes nothing away from Kirk. Lots of greats can have off-nights and just about get the win. Laing was too good for that.

Nobody thinks Kirk was a greater fighter than Duran so it's pretty obvious what people mean when they say this.

Boxing is the only sport where such a big deal of losing is made. Every other sport the greatest in that field lose all the time, sometimes to complete outsiders. Tennis, golf, F1, football, cricket etc etc.. What is also strange is it wasn't unusual for fighters to lose a lot in previous decades, now a fighter is written off after one loss.

[margaret thatcher]

ya, it's these same loss obsessed frillies who contribute to fighters being protected, but of course they'll then complain about that too

in mma losses dont matter nearly as much either as boxing

[gilgamesh]

ya, it's these same loss obsessed frillies who contribute to fighters being protected, but of course they'll then complain about that too

in mma losses dont matter nearly as much either as boxing

I think that's because in MMA there are so many variables that sh*t is a lot more unpredictable. Far more ways you can beat a guy in an MMA fight.

I will say though fans tend to be easier on guys who are always in tough. It's easier to forgive a loss if you know that win or lose, the guy is probably gonna be fighting another top guy either next time or the time after that.

If you consistently fight the cream of the crop. You're bound to take an L sometimes.

Even the people that are undefeated, Marciano and Mayweather have wins where "They were lucky"

And isn't it funny that the 2 guys who came closest to beating Floyd aren't necessarily the best guys he ever fought? It's that 'ol styles make fights thing rearing it's head again.

[margaret thatcher]

yep, those 50-0 and 49-0 could easily be 49-1 or 48-2 or even worse

so many fighters have several fights that couldve gone another way, whether wins or losses

[Ambling Alp II]

Anyone can have an off night or pull a masterclass out the bag. Lots of fighters were lucky to get decisions they shouldn’t have got, another ref might’ve stopped Fury when he was poleaxed by Wilder. These decisions can change a win into a loss quite easily. Marciano was said to be very lucky to get the decision against Ted Lowry, that could’ve quite easily have been a loss and then how would Marciano be ranked now, a lot lower than he is now. Duran lost to Laing who was knocked out in his next fight. Lots of grey areas in boxing and results don't always tell the full story.

Exactly. If you say Duran had an off-night people will kick and scream for post after post. But saying that takes nothing away from Kirk. Lots of greats can have off-nights and just about get the win. Laing was too good for that.

Nobody thinks Kirk was a greater fighter than Duran so it's pretty obvious what people mean when they say this.

Boxing is the only sport where such a big deal of losing is made. Every other sport the greatest in that field lose all the time, sometimes to complete outsiders. Tennis, golf, F1, football, cricket etc etc.. What is also strange is it wasn't unusual for fighters to lose a lot in previous decades, now a fighter is written off after one loss.

"Boxing is the only sport where such a big deal of losing is made"?
Well, no.
Losing counts against in you every sport. If you lose a tennis match, you don't win the touunament.
Boxing is not set up like the other sports at all.

In tennis, there is a draw. You have to play whoever, you draw ion the first round, not anyone that you want. Eventually you are going to have to beat some good players to win the tournament.

You can compare tennis players, (and athletes in most other sports) by how tournaments, races, games etc. they won.
They have much less say so in your schedule.

In boxing, you basically set your own schedule. Obviously, some guys fight much more difficult schedules. Youi can't just go by win/loss records.

It's actually more like college basketball. You make your own out of conference schedule. When the regular season ends, the Selection Committee chooses who makes the NCAA tournament, and seeds the teams.

What do they look at? Obviously win/loss record, but it goes much deeper. Strength of schedule. Quality wins. Were the losses against good teams or bad teams. How competitive were the games.

"What is also strange is it wasn't unusual for fighters to lose a lot in previous decades, now a fighter is written off after one loss."

Boxing used to be different. A promising fighter didn't automatically begin his career 20-0 against a bunch of nobodies. then get a WBS title shot, often against a champion who did the same thing.

Way back, a young fighter fought tough veterans. He also took on other promising fighters. There was usually only champion, so he had to do something to stand out. Once he was a contender, he was actually expected to fight other contenders to get a title shot.
Natually fighters used to lose more often. But they also had more wins against tough competition.

If you don't fight tough competition and still have losses, you probably aren't great.

[Ezzard]

Anyone can have an off night or pull a masterclass out the bag. Lots of fighters were lucky to get decisions they shouldn’t have got, another ref might’ve stopped Fury when he was poleaxed by Wilder. These decisions can change a win into a loss quite easily. Marciano was said to be very lucky to get the decision against Ted Lowry, that could’ve quite easily have been a loss and then how would Marciano be ranked now, a lot lower than he is now. Duran lost to Laing who was knocked out in his next fight. Lots of grey areas in boxing and results don't always tell the full story.

Exactly. If you say Duran had an off-night people will kick and scream for post after post. But saying that takes nothing away from Kirk. Lots of greats can have off-nights and just about get the win. Laing was too good for that.

Nobody thinks Kirk was a greater fighter than Duran so it's pretty obvious what people mean when they say this.

Boxing is the only sport where such a big deal of losing is made. Every other sport the greatest in that field lose all the time, sometimes to complete outsiders. Tennis, golf, F1, football, cricket etc etc.. What is also strange is it wasn't unusual for fighters to lose a lot in previous decades, now a fighter is written off after one loss.

Agree and it ruins the sport. If you rate a fighter lower for losses then you do everyone a disservice. The fighters who make the most money are overly-managed and we miss out.

[gilgamesh]

As we're seeing with Crawford, Spence, Tank, Munguia, Ryan Garcia.

Lots of guys going the softer route to protect the 0.

You have a few guys who are unbeaten, but actually testing themselves. Like Usyk and Inoue, and to a slightly lesser degree Fury.

Other top guys have losses because it just comes with the territory if you're gonna fight other top guys.

[Ezzard]

As we're seeing with Crawford, Spence, Tank, Munguia, Ryan Garcia.

Lots of guys going the softer route to protect the 0.

You have a few guys who are unbeaten, but actually testing themselves. Like Usyk and Inoue, and to a slightly lesser degree Fury.

Other top guys have losses because it just comes with the territory if you're gonna fight other top guys.

Agree.

More than that, What if you're not the guy (Mayweather) who gets to pick the fight of the date (so you can juice and your opponent can't), the size of the ring, the ref, the rules, the venue... You have to take the fight with a lot stacked against you.

[Ambling Alp II]

Exactly. If you say Duran had an off-night people will kick and scream for post after post. But saying that takes nothing away from Kirk. Lots of greats can have off-nights and just about get the win. Laing was too good for that.

Nobody thinks Kirk was a greater fighter than Duran so it's pretty obvious what people mean when they say this.

Boxing is the only sport where such a big deal of losing is made. Every other sport the greatest in that field lose all the time, sometimes to complete outsiders. Tennis, golf, F1, football, cricket etc etc.. What is also strange is it wasn't unusual for fighters to lose a lot in previous decades, now a fighter is written off after one loss.

Agree and it ruins the sport. If you rate a fighter lower for losses then you do everyone a disservice. The fighters who make the most money are overly-managed and we miss out.

It counts in just about every sport.
In soccrer, don't go by win/losses?
They do in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL.
But in those sports, you don't make your own schedule.

Ezzard, that is just insane Ezzard to discount losses.

I get that some guys run up their record against weak competition.
That is why they shouldn't get credit for beating weak competition either.

Losses count. They happened. They are facts.
What if a guy has a major weakness that he can get away with against weak competition?
When he gets exposed by a good fighter, it shows that he wasn't that good.

Consistency counts.

[oogiebe]

As we're seeing with Crawford, Spence, Tank, Munguia, Ryan Garcia.

Lots of guys going the softer route to protect the 0.

You have a few guys who are unbeaten, but actually testing themselves. Like Usyk and Inoue, and to a slightly lesser degree Fury.

Other top guys have losses because it just comes with the territory if you're gonna fight other top guys.

Agree.

More than that, What if you're not the guy (Mayweather) who gets to pick the fight of the date (so you can juice and your opponent can't), the size of the ring, the ref, the rules, the venue... You have to take the fight with a lot stacked against you.

100%. Just how many fighters retired undefeated of the thousands that participated? And how many of those fought the best of their eras? Less than one hand to count. Now count how many fighters who lost fights and learned from those experiences rose to prominence or even greatness? Or overcame those losses to rise the same? Countless.

[Ezzard]

As we're seeing with Crawford, Spence, Tank, Munguia, Ryan Garcia.

Lots of guys going the softer route to protect the 0.

You have a few guys who are unbeaten, but actually testing themselves. Like Usyk and Inoue, and to a slightly lesser degree Fury.

Other top guys have losses because it just comes with the territory if you're gonna fight other top guys.

Agree.

More than that, What if you're not the guy (Mayweather) who gets to pick the fight of the date (so you can juice and your opponent can't), the size of the ring, the ref, the rules, the venue... You have to take the fight with a lot stacked against you.

100%. Just how many fighters retired undefeated of the thousands that participated? And how many of those fought the best of their eras? Less than one hand to count. Now count how many fighters who lost fights and learned from those experiences rose to prominence or even greatness? Or overcame those losses to rise the same? Countless.

Agree. In most sports every team plays every team, Or at the very least there is a draw and a tournament. You are appraised by your trophies. It's more damning if a leading fighter has a number of top opposition that they avoided or simply never fought. Defeats mean very little.

[oogiebe]

Agree.

More than that, What if you're not the guy (Mayweather) who gets to pick the fight of the date (so you can juice and your opponent can't), the size of the ring, the ref, the rules, the venue... You have to take the fight with a lot stacked against you.

100%. Just how many fighters retired undefeated of the thousands that participated? And how many of those fought the best of their eras? Less than one hand to count. Now count how many fighters who lost fights and learned from those experiences rose to prominence or even greatness? Or overcame those losses to rise the same? Countless.

Agree. In most sports every team plays every team, Or at the very least there is a draw and a tournament. You are appraised by your trophies. It's more damning if a leading fighter has a number of top opposition that they avoided or simply never fought. Defeats mean very little.

Amen brother.