Too much attention on the 0

Couldn't agree more. The "0" seems more important today than the fighter facing the best compeition. Its a marketing thing i guess. One ting I have to respect about MMA is that they don't right you off if you lose a fight.:good

 

True the defending of the 0 is bogus and most go,in the old days these things didn't exist

 

Well I think that early in a fighters career an 0 is pretty important. Most fighters face stiffs early on so if you can't beat those guys you don't have much of a shot at the top guys. later on in a fighter's career the 0 is definatly over rated.

 

A guy who chases the biggest fights and the toughest opponents, and incurs some losses doing so, is worth a hundred of a hometown zero-protector taking the easy option his whole career.

 

i like to see a guy with 2-3 losses means he fought good fighters or he wasnt brought up like a lil *****..look at the p4p best JMM and Pac have losses and no one bitches about them but calzaghe has the 0 and everyone bitches because he went about it easy 2-3 losses in my eyes means a MUCH better fighter

 

Indeed, I've always said that a true champion has losses on his record.

 

Exactly:good

 

A true champ or a true contender would definitely want to fight fights in which he's an underdog, I think.

 

And by fighting hard fights after another you should lose a few

 

People still fall for it though. And people always cry that a fighter has been exposed once they lose their '0', Cotto for example.