BoxRec

I've always maintined that british boxing has an unhealthy infatuation with the mystical "perfect record" . Preserving the O seems more important in todays "casual fan" driven climate than providing valued entertainment to the paying public. Even more perplexing is preserving the O rather than finding out who the best truly is.
But I think the tide could be, and should be, turning.

A couple of examples ...

Paulie Malinaggi - arrived on the scene through valiant defeat
Herman Nogujdo <sp> - shot to prominence through 2 razor close defeats
Ricardo Torres - became known for a valiant defeat
Mark Thompson - Overlooked by Sky until he took a fight at late notice against Vincent Vuma, said he learnt more through defeat than he did through beating up journeymen. Subsequently offered a title eliminator and more "sky time".

So, I ask you. How would the career of Hatton gone had he fougt Tszyu back in 2003? Hatton was fighting Tackie at the time. Had he lost but performed as ricky would have, would more doors have opened for him? How would Calzaghe's career have gone had he fought Jones Jr (at light heavy) around 2001? Joe had been champ for a few years, so why not take the risk then? now the big one, should Khan sacrifice his O ina valiant display in the summer (presumably against Kastidis) would it really be that big a blow, or could it be a major positive?

Of course moving a fighter can also be negative. Witters loss to Judah has dogged his career, and has Lacy really been the same since the Calzaghe fight?

I agree that the undefeated record means very little.

What a defeat does is to test the mental strength of the fighter. Do they have what it takes to come back? It can also remind a fighter what's in store for them should they, at any point, ease off in training or preparation.

Some guys become better fighters because of their defeats (Benn) others basically shatter and either don't come back or are never the same (Lacy, Naz).

A defeat would not hurt Khan in my book but as his promoter you wouldn't want to see him badly beaten up at this stage.

A points defeat is preferable to a stoppage.

Depends how you lose that 'O'.
Errol Christie is a prime example of finding it hard to rebuild himself.

Do we really know enough about a fighter until he is defeated?

Terry D wrote:Fair enough if you have the '0' after tough fights.

Floyd Mayweather

Terry D wrote:Annoying if a fighter is protected to the point they barely get given a fight in which they'll lose a round or two.

Nadeem Siddique

I agree totally- too much attention is given to a "perfect record," often at the expensive of top fights.

All a defeat means is that, on the night, you were up against an opponent who outboxed you, or who happened to knock you out. Its not the end of the world.

Its true with up and coming fighters too. You get shows where two guys who are both around 8-0 are put against a couple of journeymen. Would it not be better all round to have them fight each other?

The classic example of a fighter who lost a few but had a great career is Johnny Nelson.

I'd say the classic (modern day) is either Gatti or Glencoffe Johnson

All I want is competitive matches for non-novices, so they at least have to earn the right to keep hold of their O. The problems arise when opponents are being chose because they are cheap and pose little risk

Wales wrote:I'd say the classic (modern day) is either Gatti or Glencoffe Johnson

Winky is another

Chambers2 wrote:All I want is competitive matches for non-novices, so they at least have to earn the right to keep hold of their O. The problems arise when opponents are being chose because they are cheap and pose little risk

Agree 100%. From a fans point of view, there is little appeal in seeing an up and coming prospect in his 5-10th fight bang out a 6 round win over a Nobby Nobbs (with no disrespect) journeyman.

Some people are naturally more skillful than others, and match ups should reflect that.

David Haye I think is the classic example of a fighter who lost his 0 with good reson because he was taking on the best possible opponent, that tought him a hell of a lot, which is why he is now world champion.

A more meaningful loss of your 0 is if your being protected A la Mathew Thruwall and lose to a journyman.

One caviat to that is that its not just the casual fans who judge haye by his 1 indeed most don't notice however there are constant refferences on this board about him being china chinned and having no stamina etc cos he lost one his 11th fight. So before pointing fingures at the less knowledgable we need to think about our views

Chambers2 wrote:

Wales wrote:I'd say the classic (modern day) is either Gatti or Glencoffe Johnson

Winky is another

Hopkins for me is a good example.

I personally think that the States put a far more of emphasis on a fighter's "0" than here in Blighty, although we're fairly bad at it.

I've always thought a loss is more character building for a fighter than any win, and displays to the public whether the fighter is protected, or just has a high level of confidence. Both David Reid and Jeff Lacy are good examples of the latter. Or has the heart and courage to pick himself up and win again, and win well. Haye is a good example.

However, the loss has to be "at the right time". What I mean is, I think the fighter has to be fairly young, or within their first 10-15 fights for it to be character building.

Good example of the Hatton v Tackie fight. I've always maintained that it was Ricky's greatest performance (in the ring), and was his absolute peak. He boxed beautifully. Had he had 24/7 and a fight against a P4P LW in the States at that time, I have no doubt he'll be:

a) The biggest grossing British boxer we've ever had by a mile
b) A top 3 P4P fighter

Boxing is a sport in which the two or three best in a division can go through their careers and never fight one another. In other sports you know everyone will compete against one another, often multiple times.

Like has been said above, a loss means you were beaten on one particular night. These days though the top fighters who sneak a win rarely wnat to grant a rematch.

Another dimension I'd ask is to ask what it means to the casual fan.

I've never been asked if a fighter was undefeated, but I have been asked who he's fought and what belts he's won.

Don't forget to that virtually all pros fought as amateurs at some point, and I don't think any amateur has a perfect record. As such they do know, psycologically, what it "feels like to lose" etc.

Although, that said, in Amir Khans autobiography he seems to have a host of excuses.

whicker wrote: Although, that said, in Amir Khans autobiography he seems to have a host of excuses.

I think that at the elite level it's psychologically necessary to justify a loss to yourself, to allow you to continue to believe that you are the best. The problem for me is that they feel the need to tell everybody else, when nobody else wants to hear it. Better to accept defeat with grace and prove yourself by how you come back IMO.

I mean, how ridiculous does Jeff Lacy sound when trying to justify his loss to Calzaghe and suggesting he wants a rematch?

If you lose your O in uk people to quick to send you to scrap heap
in USA they say ok lets try again.
Apart from David Haye early career loss I think Jamie Moore also became a better fight after his early loss to Scott Dixon.