Protecting the "0"

Very few have Os so a didna think it mattered too much too to real fans, the plastics likely slabber over it more

 

Good point, but the only reason that happens is because of us boxing fans. I know I have been guilty of it, but when a certain fighter wins you have people saying hes a hype job or other statement of that type.

Look at Brook though he stepped up very slowly but if he had done it sooner I doubt he would have done what he has, look at the first Jones fight, if he had been in against a slightly better fighter he would have lost. So sometimes it is right to do it this way but others can just be down to fear of a public backlash

 

Probably because if you lose you get people going on about whether you should retire or move up in weight

 

Losing the 0... LOL

I think it actually helps a fighter to lose an early career bout, if nothing else to take this sort of nonsense out the equation. In the UK losing early on did not seem to do Barry McGuigan or Michael Watson too much harm. And worldwide some of the finest ever lost on their pro debut: Armstrong, Hopkins and Arguello come to mind.

Even an 0 can sometimes not be what it seems. For instance Marciano lost fights after his pro debut, and Julio Cesar Chavez was disqualified early on his career; in a defeat that was recorded for many years in the Ring Record Books, until DKP put pressure on them...

The truth is an 0 means nothing until a fighter retires, and then it can be used in their legacy. But very often this leads to some questioning quality of opposition. And after all, one of the great satisfactions of boxing is avenging a defeat.

 

Honestly couldn't give a **** about an unbeaten record. That many fighters get robbed now that it really makes little difference. Broner should have at least three losses now but people still tune in to see him because he's a tool and also a very good fighter. Same gos for khan. Guys awesome, just because he's been beat means very little as far as his ability is concerned

 

I feel the same way, but it's a depressing reality that the protection of the 0 dictates how promoters match up fighters. Profits and potential match ups are in mind over what boxing fans think of fighters. Khan for example would never have fought Prescott had they thought he'd lose. I'm sure far less people tune in to watch Broner since he's lost his 0, as it sells. It's an unfortunate reality and I hope it changes - can't see it happening though as boxing is a business and the money is where the masses are.

 

Often it can depend on "how" the 0 was lost as well...lose an exciting tear up (Pascal against Froch for example) and nobody really loses, that loss certainly didn't set Pascal back far.

 

this lies at joe and wicky's door

 

It does not help their marketability. All promoters say that it is far easier to promote an unbeaten fighter than ones with losses on their records. Like it or not, fans get more excited about unbeaten fighters.

 

I can't be the only one struggling to work out the meaning or relevance of these last few posts. Instead of employing quirky phrases ('gospel of boxing', 'embedded down the hierarchy') and using 'etc' at the end of most of your sentences, can you use plain English? It would make your writing much easier to follow.

 

it only bothers fickle people

 

He really isn't.

Half of it doesn't even make sense.

What does this mean:

'the gospel of boxing embedded down the hierarchy that can't be changed etc.'

?

It sounds like a bad translation.

 

Hmmmm, what gives me the feeling that there are some 'Alts' at play here...