the "0" is ruining boxing

Yes. Look at Joe Calzaghe. He literally did a 'hit and run' with his title and quit because of that precious 0. Look at floyd. Its ridiculous. That is why it is great to be a hopkins fan. He doesnt give a **** about his record and hell take whoever/whenever.

 

Im not familiar with us odds but I had 5 odds on ortiz on fightnight at betfair, I think those odds are made based on what people are going to bet on.
Khan was a big favoruite vs maidana but we all knew that if maidana landed it could be lights out which nearly happened. You cant say that was easy win for khan and a safe bet because it clearly wanst despite beinga big favourite.
But im kind of getting off the subject with this:yep

 

I think it's a sympton of the general public losing interest in boxing. They've got no time for the nuances of individual boxers and how they stack up against each other. They would look at pac's 3 losses and mayweather 0 and say "mayweather must be the best"

look at Duran,Leonard ,Hagler and Hearns and the fights they had against each other. No one cared about '0's cos no one had one. and they're all in the hall of fame

 

Correct. Timothy Bradley is a ******.

 

Amen.

 

Fans are fickle. And many lack respect for fighters. There are a lot of keyboad warriors out there who have never been hit in the face in sparring and do not understand the courage it takes to actually get into a ring with someone who wants to hurt you. They label fighters who have lost 'bum' or 'overrated' and love to throw the word 'exposed' around constantly. They accuse fighters of having glass chins and of being 'cowards' something that makes me laugh - no fighter is a coward. To get in the ring takes more courage than 90% of the people on earth possess.

All this is ****. Fighters fight and some are better than others. Styles can make fights, and extremely good and skilled fighters can be beaten by lesser skilled fighters because of this or, in many cases, the desire and heart of the underdog. The BEST fighters in history always fought the best, got knocked out, down or lost and came back and rose to the challenge of another elite fighter.

Archie Moore got knocked out, Joe Louis got knocked out, Benny Leonard got knocked out, Joe Walcott got knocked out, Jack Dempsey got knocked out, and all these guys lost early in their careers. Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard, and Alexis Arguello got knocked out in their first fights. We call these guys legends, we call Amir Khan and Paul Williams exposed. Why? Fighters fight and there is always someone who has your number out there. Doesn't mean we should lose respect for a guy if he is bested. What makes the fighter is how he comes back from it. Unfortunately there is a lack of respect today and fighters lose the draw because of people who have no idea what they are on about writing fighters off as soon as they lose.

That is why the 'O' is so important. You lose drawing power and money. It's wrong. This is why MMA does so well. The fighters fight the best and lose. Just like the old school fighters. Doesn't make them any less great, and people need to realise that if they want they want the best fights to happen.

 

The "0" is a marketing tool for people who don't know **** about boxing. It helps make bull**** matches sound more important if one or both fighters are undefeated.

In fact, the "0" is similar to the alphabelt belts. Having one doesn't mean **** by itself but people will see a fighter holding his interim diamond belt while "21-0" is at the bottom of the screen and assume the fight is meaningful.

Really "0"s and alphabet titles harm boxing, as these supposedly great undefeated guys then tend to put on **** fights (eg Bradley vs Alexander) and give off the wrong impression of the sport.

 

Boxing and combat sports in general are different from other sports. in sports like basketball and football, when you lose, the next season you start over with a clean slate.
In boxing, losses stick with your for the rest of your life. This is 2011 and people are still talking about roy jones being KTFO by antonio tarver back in 2004 as a popular example

 

thank you! :emma

 

ughh, i cant remember if some reknowned boxer or trainer said about if you have a ZERO in your loss column, then you havent fought the best competition. Conversely, if you do have a few losses, then it shows that you didnt run from peeps and fought the best. I truly believe in this.

Every fighter & promoter have to evaluate each potential fight w/ a Risk vs Reward factor. The risk is the Loss. A loss in boxing in these present times seem to be absolutely devastating. I think the general public have this great pre-occupation of narcissim and fantasized "elitism" that they live thru their fighters, because they LACK of it in their own life. This seems to be VERY PROMINENT with some fans of a certain boxer who doesnt have a loss. And this simple factor seems to be a focal point for them, when matching up against other fighters.

To tell you the truth, this is pitifully sad, and this type of delusional thinking can make others laugh and turn them away from the sport. I feel these types are those who are so afraid of losing that they've never really tried anything much at all.

There's nothing lousy than watching someone go against someone they can easily and predictably win against. This isnt TRUE competition! Ive played LOADS of sports before, and obviously you're bound to lose, though you plan to win. Theres no shame in losing, but its up to the fighter to gain as much as they can from that loss. And sometimes, that is the only way to progress forward.

David Lemieux. Im honestly happy that he lost, and obviously his trainer didnt mind him getting a 0 in the column. Before getting dropped again, he called the fight off. David doesnt have to suffer pressure from having that ZERO over his head, and can now continue taking on RISKY fights. I honestly feel sorry for those who have had zeroes for so long, because all it becomes is a liability on the most part. No one wants to lose that zero after having it for so long, and your fights down the road WILL reflect that. Look at Chris John's last couple fights. Why isnt he matching up against Celestino, Gamboa, or Lopez? Other than Rocky Juarez, is only notable is JMM.

IF Andre Ward wins the Super 6, he's suppposedly to be matched against Lucian Bute. BOTH are undefeated and take pride in that. I'll be SERIOUSLY surprised if both fighters agree to fight each other. And im a BIG fan of BOTH.

And Lucian Bute supposedly took on Mikkel Kessler's fight challenge at a Bute fight. I'll be surprised if Bute lives up to that, i know Kessler would fight him. And i would strongly favor Bute. But there's some decent risk there too....

 

yes.
There's a BIG difference in individual sports vs team sports. I wrestled and had much more pressure on myself in performance vs competitive play in soccer and basketball. The pressure is more divided evenly and can displace blame on teammates. But like wrestling, there's no one to blame a loss to in boxing, than yourself.

 

100 per****ingcent thumbsup:thumbsup

 

True, trying to keeping fighters undefeated started in 1970's, and holds them back from learning through tough bouts. The word 'UNEFEATED" sells. Especially to the casual fan, or some guy channel surfing to find something to watch on tv.

 

Here is the problem i think....we rarely have those fighters who do lose their "0" and still go on to become great and garner that limelight.

Alot of todays fighters lose or get exposed and don't have the fortitude to get back up and still prove something.

 

This :deal

I would say the "0" is worse than the alphabets. At least we sometimes get to see a good mandatory fight because of the alphabets. The "0" lets the frauds fight bums and let the promoters market the undefeated fighter as some great.