the "0" is ruining boxing

****ing 0

 

0, dude, if youre reading? go **** yourself, seriously. youre depriving us of great matchups, because people are too afraid of losing you. what the ****? if you had any balls, youd come on here and explain, why youre so ****ing important. you ****ing diva. but i bet you wont do that. because youre just as big an assjockey coward as the fighters who are afraid of losing you. **** you, 0.

 

:blurp

 

I think you are correct, marro. The problems are what you stated, plus the networks seem to completely **** on a fighter (unless he has a long term contract with them) when a fighter loses. I little OTJ training could really help the sport. Just look at the MMA stuff. A fighter may lose, then gets a chance to comeback.

 

on a serious note, youre absolutely right, and i wholeheartedly agree with the original poster as well. this undefeated thing is totally overrated, but not only the media but also the fans have to be blamed for that. people often dump a fighter when he loses, and when he gets knocked out he has a glass chin. its total bull****. there is no fighter in the world who, if he fought all styles, would beat every single one. he would always lose to at least one at least once.

you mention mma, its the same in k-1. noone will deny that ernesto hoost, jerome lebanner, peter aerts or ray sefo are legends. almost all of them have knockout losses in the double digits, not to mention losses in general. noone gives a ****. boxing needs to be the same.

 

lol sorry dude.:smooch

 

Couldn't agree more. This modern obsession with the zero is killing boxing.

 

its partially our fault as boxing fans when we stop caring about a boxer that loses, he turns into a shot overhyped bum, which is completely ridiculous but it happens at this point you hear nobody caring about paul williams,andre berto, montiel, abraham,pavlik etc. once a fighter loses people will ahve less interest in him thus he will not likely get big money fights if he isnt a household name and therefore will be more likely to play it safe career wise instead of taking on everyone.

 

now all we need to say is mayweather and ppl will come and say that this 0 is the heart of boxing

 

Chavez Jr. is the poster boy for this ****.Top Rank (and his Daddy) guided him nicely.Now it's time to put up or shut up.

 

I would say this though. Although floyd is undefeated he still fought great competition. Corrales was a fave against floyd, castillo2x was a 2-1 underdog which is not bad rates. After a close bout floyd still took him on immediately and you need that in a champion. Judah was a 3-1, Oscar was a 2-1, shane was a 2.5-1. Hatton was a 2-1 underdog. If it isn't a risk fight for floyd he would be unbettable. I think this is a point that people always overlook. Vegas odds. Now not picking on pac but his recent fight with shane he was a 8-1 fave, he was a big dog against oscar, 3-1 over hatton, 2-1 marquez, 6-1 over clottey, 4-1 over cotto, 5-1 over marg. So according to vegas he was fighting weaker competition than floyd, i think is bc he is fighting guy on the downside of the careers. Now get this..... Floyd vs Manny, floyd is a -1.5 fave..... over manny.

 

Those vegas odds make no sense at all sometimes because fights are actually closer then they are, I had great odds on clottey vs cotto which a lot of people though would be a close fight which it turned out to be, also pac vs cotto was a 55/45 or 60/40 type fight in the eyes of people.
Those odds are always way too high which si great for betting, ortiz was 5-1 underdog vs berto, I had a bet on him because I saw it as 50/50. same with johnson vs froch, froch is a huge favourite allthough a lot of people think he will lsoe because of johnsons style. Does that make it a bad win if froch pulls it off?

 

Ortiz was a 3-1 dog. Bert was a 5-1 fave. Vegas skims the middle to f**k the betters in the ass for it. Vegas tends to bump 100 pts on the public fave. But for the most part they got it going on. It is hard as hell to beat vegas.

 

Yeah people do pay too much attention to being undefeated and not enough on quality of opposition that's why I respect guys like Froch. Marciano retired undefeated yet took on all comers whether young(Savold, Layne, Lastarza) or old(Charles twice, Moore, Walcott twice, Louis) yet he still got tested. It's not the loss that truly matters if you face tough tests, it's whether you do enough to win as a fighter respective to what stage you are in your career.