BoxRec

Is it a relatively new phenomenon for fighters to be written off after losing by KO, or losing once?
I think I read boxing forums too much, and the drivel I have to skim until I find an opinion that seems remotely balanced, has zeroed my memory of how title boxers were discussed in the past.
Lennox Lewis has, in my mind anyway, has proven to be a great, took a couple of avenged KO losses but, I can't remember how he was spoken of in general at the time.
Being the most balanced forum, and only one I'm on, I thought I'd ask here.
Is too much made of losses, KO's or even a string of losses these days?

It's a good question.

I think it depends on the manner of the defeat & how a fighter responds after it.

I do think losses are much more magnified now due to the relative inactivity of modern boxers compared to boxers from previous eras.

Yes, very much so.

Robinson, Dempsey, Norton, Louis and a host of other good or great fighters lost before winning the title and it was hardly the end of anything.

I think Mayweather vs GGG would be a great matchup. Which leads me to another thing that is over emphasized these days- Weight. Henry Armstrong often fought fighters who were a dozen or so pounds heavier or lighter than he was. Sometimes he won. Sometimes he didn't. Life went on and Henry is an All Time Great.

Mayweather may very well lose to GGG which would be no disgrace of course. And he'd have million$ of reasons for taking the fight, but God forbid he may lose to another great fighter.

Yes definitely

It's one of the reasons I love MMA so much now. Guys lose, they come back and win, they lose again and people don't write them off.

Look at Dan Henderson, Bisping, Aldo, Nate Diaz, Cowboy Cerrone, Overeem, Brock, Hunt, Mighty Mouse and many many more. Boxing could learn a lot from the new guys, but it won't.

Yes, it always annoys me when people list every loss as a negative on a resume. There are losses like Leonard/Duran that are a positive on your ledger.

Simply, yes.

Massively.

Yes.

Yes they are far over emphasised. So much so that IMO it stops certain fights from happening.

Sometimes a loss is good for a fighter, in a perverse kind of way.

I think Nigel Benn best illustrates this.

Nigel was a straight ahead, all out, guns blazing KO artist, until he ran into the roadblock that was Michael Watson who taught him a boxing lesson so comprehensive that Michael was able to KO Nigel with a light jab!

Benn learnt a lot from that defeat & improved massively as a fighter & went on to have a much better career as a result of it.

Relative inactivity and marketability have had a massive effect. Guys like Manuel Median and Daniel Zaragoza seem to be much less common these days.

It's funny to see people complain about the things they do.

It's really evident when fans go crazy over a Porter/Thurman type decision.
If you were outraged, you take wins and losses too serious ...

Also, the notion of winning and sport competition has become 100% about the result.
If Ward completely dominates Kovalev for 10 rounds, and then Sergey lands one lucky punch and ices Ward,
this place would erupt as if it were some legitimate win.

Of course it would be exciting.

But since fans can't tell the difference between that, and a "real" win, every loss will be over-emphasized in boxing.

So you guys STOP IT, or it won't go away.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:If Ward completely dominates Kovalev for 10 rounds, and then Sergey lands one lucky punch and ices Ward,
this place would erupt as if it were some legitimate win.

It would be a legitimate win.

Horse wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:If Ward completely dominates Kovalev for 10 rounds, and then Sergey lands one lucky punch and ices Ward,
this place would erupt as if it were some legitimate win.

It would be a legitimate win.

It would be a legitimate win. It's like if you're getting clobbered in Chess, but get a checkmate out of nowhere, it's still a win. A win is a win.

I'd say they are yeah

Horse wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:If Ward completely dominates Kovalev for 10 rounds, and then Sergey lands one lucky punch and ices Ward,
this place would erupt as if it were some legitimate win.

It would be a legitimate win.

BI is still trying to figure out this whole boxing thing.

To the question, yes, losses are waaay to overblown these days.

Losses are way over emphasized these days.

Sugar Ray Robinson was 3-3 with 2 KO wins in Middleweight Title Defenses, and it was no big deal either... They just went on with the next match when he lost to Turpin, Basilio, and Fullmer.. Basilio was a Welterweight coming up in weight when he beat Robinson.. Robinson also lost every round to HUGE underdog Ralph Jones who was coming off of 5 straight losses -- and no big deal was made out of it... Robinson went on with the next fight like a Basketball or Baseball team who loses... Who cares if he lost a fight???

In contrast Gennady Golovking is 16-0 with 16 KO wins in Middleweight Title Defenses.. If he lost to undefeated, 36-0, Kell Brook he would be attacked non-stop on social media.. People were ready to pounce on Mayweather if he lost.. In fact haters insisted Floyd lost to Castillo, De La Hoya, Maidana, and Pacquiao.. If he ever did lose for real Floyd would never have heard the end of it -- and I think this is one reason he fought Andre Berto. Played it safe.

You can't lose today if you hold a position like Fury, Ortiz, Joshua, Wilder, Kovalev, Ward, Golovkin, Spence, Crawford, Thurman, and a few others... Brook can lose to Golovkin because he's expected to... But if Golovkin loses the next excuse for not fighting him will be "He lost." ... You're not really allowed to be a fallible human being today with the social media storms and haters who jump on you and glory in your defeat.

I really think they are and its a shame. I think good exciting fights are not made or excessively delayed as promotors believe a undefeated record is a golden ticket ala Mayweather. I feel It's a detriment to the actual fighters themselves as they miss out on learning opportunities because a loss or a draw or just a hard fight is learning, its better for that to happen sooner than later.

On that....I really don't know whats happening with his next fights nor do I want to comment on his previous opponents but Anthony Joshua is a very marketable boxer. Are his promotors going to protect him from the big fights? We will have to wait and see. I feel before "undefeated" became the money ticket, he would be on track to fight the big names and maybe he still is... (I appreciate he has limited pro experience but he's the champ and a money making champ). I feel Tyson Fury would give him a boxing lesson but he would catch Fury in the rematch after he had learnt. I don't think it would hurt his marketability in the long run...nor his legacy.

Everyone takes a loss in life, whether its in boxing or my girlfriends cooking. I hope it stops being the stats rather than the performance against the best that proves a boxers worth.

YES!

Yes. 100%. Part of the reason best dont fight the best.

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.

The answer is yes and I would say it s all Mayweather s fault. He was by far the most followed guy in the last 10-15 years and is better way to promote himself was ton continiously talk about his "0". You don't have to go back that much to see that a lost didn t matter. Look at guys like Oscar, Hopkins, Gatti, Barrera, Morales and much more. They were all at the top or near and all popular fighter.
Floyd created this illusion and now boxers from the new generation are so afraid to lose they don t face anyone on there way up. And from there they got every excuse in the world to not face each others

There's a lot of young fighters who have to protect that 0.
Prospects are written off once they lose and the big promotional company's shy away and they lose the tv deals.
The pressure on young fighters to win is greater now than ever before.
The whole US Olympic 2012 team have been told to protect there 0, the step up will be to big for them when the tv bosses put them in for world titles.
The days of sensible matchmaking and level progression has gone for big named prospects. It's about fighting journeyman and has beens til a world title fight appears.
Learning fights are a thing of the past.

PredatorHayds wrote:There's a lot of young fighters who have to protect that 0.
Prospects are written off once they lose and the big promotional company's shy away and they lose the tv deals.
The pressure on young fighters to win is greater now than ever before.
The whole US Olympic 2012 team have been told to protect there 0, the step up will be to big for them when the tv bosses put them in for world titles.
The days of sensible matchmaking and level progression has gone for big named prospects. It's about fighting journeyman and has beens til a world title fight appears.
Learning fights are a thing of the past.

pretty much sums it up