Losses mean NOTHING

Yes. But you can go too far in the other direction like with giving fighters credit for winning the belt multiple times. An acheivement that requires multiple losses in important fights.

While fighters having a 0 late in their career is now common fighters completing one with a 0 is still rare. Most zeros are held by aspiring contenders who are at a point in their career where multiple losses will hurt them. Once a fighter is established as a perennial contender the importance of the 0 diminishes and most fighters lose it.

 

Man,

Just seen the post fight interview.

Looks like a proper melon splitter.

Kind of thing you see in rugby league when they get caught on the top of the head with a knee.

 

Casuals love the '0'

 

Depends.

You can lose one fight with a cruiser but not twice and once with a fat man.

 

Losses mean a lot, unfortunately.

 

At some point, boxing became a sissy sport. If Hagler had a career today, he would have retired after his loss to Willie Monroe.

 

Crawford has no losses

But is still a loser

What is his best win ? Car crash zombie Spence? Or amir khan?

Lmao

 

The current situation in professional boxing looks completely different. Losses mean EVERYTHING.
Now I will name a few professional boxers, current champions to confirm this:
Oleksandr Usyk 21 0 0
Tyson Fury 34 0 1
Artur Beterbiev 20 0 0
Dmitrii Bivol 22 0 0
Terence Crawford 40 0 0
Devin Haney 31 0 0
Naoya Inoue 26 0 0
Canelo, Loma, AJ, or any other boxer who experienced defeat is still not as big a star today as the boxers I listed.
Or you think otherwise?

 

No, losses aren't that important. The problem is the perceived dent on marketability because being undefeated has been so promoted many conflate it with being the best. As people said in years gone by, being undefeated often just means you haven't fought anyone.

 

I will give big credit to a fighter that fights top guys and losses, than to someone like Tank.

 

I don’t especially like him but Canelo is a bigger name in the sport than all of those guys.

Manny Pacquiao lost 8 times and was still arguably the biggest name in the sport.

Losses mean nothing if a fighter rebounds quickly.

 

I'm not saying that defeat should mean everything, nor does it mean everything to me.
I'm just saying how I think boxing fans view boxing today.
The argument for Manny Pacquiao is valid, but again I don't think today's boxing fans see him as greater than Floyd, who has zero

 

I wouldn't say losses men nothing, but they don't mean everything. So many fighters get written off after 1 or 2 losses or even a bad performance or two, but a loss can also be a positive if a fighter learns from their mistakes. Fundora's performance last night proved that, yes the cut helped him but even with the cut had he fought like he did vs Mendoza, Tszyu would of beaten him. Losses can be opportunities for fighters to become better fighters.

I'd argue a fighter with a loss or even a few losses reached closer to the limits of their potential than a fighter who never lost because the fighter that never lost never had to overcome the same kind of adversity so has untapped potential.

 

Tell that to poor Hulk Hogan that bled from the mouth and lost the match from a bear hug to Brock Lesner back in 2003.

The moment I saw that, I said to myself, Hulk is a pile of ****.

Losses mean everyone to a casual