Poll... Who considers a good fighter shot after a loss

Biggest misconception about a fighter.

 

You need to have a big showing after a tough loss.

Not a UD over a tomato can.

 

well you see this forum is populated by about 60% tards.

 

i voted no because even though it happens often. some boxers come back better than before and proceed to dominate. (Lennox, Pac, Ali etc.)

 

All good fighters lose when they fight the best. Having losses means nothing.

 

There are some rare occasions in which this happens, but usually, it's not the case.

Even in fights when people say so and so was "ruined", they're often still very formidable fighters and not shot, even if they never fully recover.

People still claim Meldrick Taylor was ruined after the first J.C. Chavez fight even though Taylor had the 2nd best win of his career after losing to Chavez. People also say the same about Fernando Vargas following the Felix Trinidad fight. Vargas still put up a good fight against Oscar De La Hoya after that and had a decent win over Javier Castillejo after that loss.

 

This.

 

Most of the time when you see a fighter who has 30-35 fights or more, and he is still undefeated, you a looking at a fighter who avoided some guys.