More fighters will retire undefeated...

Today's boxers are part timers compared to yesteryear.

Two many belts and too much easy money to be made compared to the days when some had to win to ensure their family ate that night.

 

Only casuals say this Canelo lost to Floyd and came back to have a great run Marquez lost his first fight and had a great career with one of the best wins in the sport taking a lot from Floyd's win over Pac, speaking of Pac another who lost early on and is an ATG

 

Benavidez is still on his way up, he’s not at the top yet. As for Canelo, he has a huge Mexican fanbase, plus all the Mexican holidays that naturally create fight occasions.

 

don’t forget Devin Haney who magically kept his O after Garcia tested positive for Ostarine. Again the testing was flawed.

remember, these guys won’t fight each other unless forced to…

it’s a farce and a joke. Two years from now we’ll see a showdown between Keyshawn Davis vs Shakur…

not because they want to fight each other…

 

I've wondered this as well. I remember in the 90s reading an article bemoaning Sugar Ray Leonard as an all time great despite having less than 40 fights (at the time I think this was before the Camacho debacle). Could we see someone go 10-0, retire and have people saying they are an all time great? I could see this scenario happening and I wouldn't agree with it.

 

Such a braindead **** take.

Bud tried to fight Boots BEFORE Spence and Boots DUCKED. Then Boots begged for the fight and activated his mandatory only for Bud to be stripped because Spence simultaneously activated his immediate rematch clause. If you dont remember (you honestly might not though I still think youre an idiot), Spence waited till like a week before the immediate rematch clause expired to drop his contractual demand/right, giving Bud freedom. Boots was alrdy basking in his email belt so Bud said **** it and moved up and fought an undefeated champ in Madrimov. Dont forget (loser) that Bud tried fighting both Tszyu (ducked and fought Murtazaliev) and Fundora (took a voluntary defense versus Spence...that never happened - PBC still cockblocking). The only remaining champ was Madrimov so that was that.

Bud was forced to deal with PBC and Fundora unwillingness to fight (Tszyu and Fundora both sided w PBC and were anti-Turki) OR go w Turki and get the absolute best possible fight. We saw what happened next.

 

Using 0 is a generalization. Saying 0/1 losses or something specific is awkward. You are taking it literal. 0 "culture" is a culture where fighters try to avoid losses for as long as possible. Not everyones undefeated.


Canelo was already a world champion with a bunch of defenses and he was losing to the sports best fighter. Losses are punished less when a fighter is a champion and is seen as having already "made it". Also Mayweather v Canelo was a special case. I remember before that fight people were saying "Mayweathers fighting Canelo early before hes a threat". Because Mayweather had a reputation for fighting big names at the perfect time even many of Canelos biggest fans expected him to lose and were pissed in advance.

JMM lost his debut in 1993. It took him 10 years to recover from his first 2 losses and become a world champion. Both him and Manny aren't even really from the era in question here. JMM and Manny might have been ruined by an early loss if their career had been 10 years later.

I think the fans actually punish losses more then the actual system does. At least for the champions. Tweeners and 4 belt offers plenty of rebound chances that didn't use to be there. HW and divisions like that are so bad because of idle champions thats not really the system. A fighter might recover and earn another shot but fans aren't going to expect them to win cause they think they got exposed. They will start calling them a "j********n". The fight will draw less interest and they'll get less money. If they win fans will start looking at the other fighter sideways instead of giving credit. Or it will be seen as a one off and a fighter gets the "Tokyo Douglas" treatment.

 

May pac and Marquez are from the same era and of course losing would set you back from a tittle shot

 

People really don't understand this. It's hard to fight as often as the old timers because booking a stadium is a much more involved process than it was 60 years ago.

 

You are correct about the amateurs. Go to any National tournament and you could be watching two future greats throwing down, with all that they've got.

 

Langford, Greb, Stribling had 300 fights. No one expects fighters today to do anywhere close to 100. 50-75 is a realistic full career. It seems like we're looking at that changing to 25-50.

 

Chisora is the perfect example of taking many fights against high level opponents. Even with all of his losses, he still attracted crowds and ppv.

Protecting a zero means nothing if you're not taking on the best opponents.

 

I said 60 years ago not 90

 

You know, Quasimodo predicted all of this...

 

It's definitely up there.

Arguably the other two big boxing cancers are just as much of an issue here - hype and money.

And the resulting protection of certain fighters.


Inactivity, within reason, can build anticipation and thus hype - increasing the payouts available.

Fighters are increasingly protected as a means of not putting investment at risk - it takes money to get them there, especially when manufactured, and the loss of earnings if they fail to make it Vs being protected and sold as a product are huge.