You know what?? You are right!! Thats why fighter like Miranda and lacy should not be written off yet!! Back in the day there where great fighters with some losses. Even today there are fighter like Glen Johnson who come back after some losses and be better than ever, or guys like Michael Sprott who has 10 losses already but seems to be in his prime now. The great Hopkins lost one of his first pro fight but where does he stand now? Sprott is no elite fighter but hes better than ever i think. Fighter with zero losses are either super elite or dont have fought the best opponents they could! Some fighter have the ubeatable status but thats bull**** everybody is beatable, we are only humans! Today manny fighters are just overprotected and dont take unnessecary chances to face dangerous opponents.
Im still waiting on Emmanuel Augustus to get his title shot. It would be a big '**** you' to the industry if he were to pick up a title with his record.
That's why I dobut the "boxing" world would allow EA to get a title shot....and if they did, they make it a point to stack the odds against him.
I think it is a factor of the limited TV dates. An opponent with a 0 is much more attractive to a network than one with a few losses.
anyone who knows boxing knows the O is bull****. but for nuthuggers its a good tool to claim a fighter in invinsible......
I think that there´s a contradiction here - which boxers has more fans than De La Hoya and Holyfield?
Sometimes a loss can help a fighter move forward....a lot of fans don't realize this and look too much into the 0 and not who guys have faced.
the phrase "undefeated" carries far too much weight in the realm of todays boxing, if you don't crucify a guy for losing a fight or two, you might get to see the top guys matched up alot more often, and fighters fighting much more aggresively.