Protecting the "0"

There's a fine line.

I'd say David Price's marketability has been hurt by losing his zero.

 

There is a persona about an unbeaten fighter, that helps marketing. But the fighter with the very odd exception, will eventually lose. And if the fighter had been built up mainly on the 0, then defeat can be terminal for their career.

 

The media are also to blame.

Look at how many column inches Khan got after Prescott, when a fighter loses the "0" its big news to casuals.

 

It's only important because fighters don't fight often enough. If you fight 4-5 times a year you can rebuild easily and work your way back in. If you;re fighting 2-3 times a year unless you;re a big draw you're really up against it if you can't be marketed as unbeaten.

 

I think Americans would care a lot more about a fighter being undefeated. Americans in all sports concentrate on the winners and quickly turn on losers. I think the British culture is for us to support the underdog, we are always hoping for the upset. You can see now how people are beginning to not like Joshua for silly reasons, maybe it's because he's winning so easily.

 

BUt the '0' does matter. I'm afraid it does make a difference to marketability generally. Specifically, it depends on the type of fighter you are. If you are a 'warrior' (a la Froch) who is always in wars and exciting fights then it matters less. Part of being a warrior is losing and, as some have said, avenging. If you are a power puncher ( a la Tyson) then people will still tune into see you because you are a beast.

No, the real problem is when you are a boring tactician with no pop who edges out decisions - however clear - over opposition. (a la Frankie Gavin). Without the '0' you become a much harder sell.

 

I know what you mean, but I'd say that its more Prices career trajectory that has been hurt, rather than his marketability per se. In other words, after two straight losses in that fashion he's been reigned right in and slowed right back. Hence the effort to market him as a main draw has expectedly been less.

Because he can bang and is dangerous then his marketability will always be superior to a heavyweight who is underpowered.

 

So much emphasis get's put on having the "0".

Me personally, I prefer seeing the likes of a Carl Froch put it on the line whether it be going into his opponents back yard or fighting the best.

Also sticking with the SMW division, Groves & Degale both putting it on the line against each other early into there careers.

That's what it's all about.

 

There's some truth there, but if Hughie Fury fought in one arena and Price fought across town on the same night at the same time against mid-level opposition that was considered equal, with undercards of equal interest, I'm betting Hughie draws a bigger crowd of a higher TV rating.

 

Disagree, Price is a bigger draw than Hughie at this current moment.

 

This sums it up quite well for me.