when did over protection and undefeted records become the fad?

I would agree with this and also add that as more money has come come into the game the risks have been higher in promoters allowing their "golden geese" to take dangerous fights.
It's a shame really because in trying to attract casual boxing followers competitive matches between prospects and top fighters has been lost to a degree.
The advent of multiple titles is another offshoot of this.
On the other side of the argument there is now more fighters with lesser talents making more money out of the game.

 

i think its since promoters have started signing fighters on long term deals

 

Not when your 4-0 and being thown to 25-0 Eddie Ross's ete.

 

when TV became a major player, especially with the whole Tomorrow's Champion thing.A couple of those guys never recovered.

 

Boxing Matchmakers,

They were trying to get (2) undefeated fighters to fight for the Heavyweight
title since the 1950's.

Simply, smart marketing.

It just took them a little longer to do it.

Does anyone know what the first Heavyweight Title fight was that had
'2' undefeated fighters.

 

Was the Ali-Fraizer FOTC? Ali being undefeated due to the viet. fiasco and Joe being the current champion undefeated?

 

I don't think more money's been added to the game once inflation is taken in to account. I think the revenue's actually been going down, and that's why fewer guys can earn a livable wage from the sport. That's also why fighters are so protected now- each loss on the way up isn't a learning experience, it's a hit on the promoter's investment. It's usually more profitable to build up a hyped unbeaten record and cash in on the biggest fight possible (2-4 times if you can) while the record's still pretty. A loss on the way up can set that ideal timeline back years even if it produces an overall net benefit for the fighter.

We're (this generation of fight fans) is as much to blame for it as anything else, but we're also the product of our environment the same way our fighters are and that's what we're sold. The boxing revenue pie gets sliced in fewer pieces than ever and everyone's grabbing for the biggest slice possible. Smoke and mirrors are simply a cost of doing business.

 

The Foreman thing you raised was interesting but I do have to give great deal of credit to Foreman where he did his run of, was it 6 or 7 fights where it went something like Joe Frazier-Ken Norton-Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier-Ron Lyle (??) something like that anyway - you don't do that if your thinking easy ride/self preservation that's for sure - but I agree his second coming was a total marketing ploy - he could secure any fight when he wanted because he was Big George and he had the whole of American sentiment behind him and he got lucky (although not too lucky - anyone with his punch is only one punch away when you're fighting someone who is know for a questionable chin

 

Actually,

NYSAC Heavyweight Title,,,1968
Joe Frazier versus Buster Mathis

I do believe Larry Holmes fought the most undefeated fighters, as a Title Holder.
Ossie Ocassio
Gerry Cooney
Scott Frank
Renaldo Snipes
Tim Witherspoon
Leroy Jones
Marvis Frazier
David Bey
Carl Williams
Michael Spinks I

 

Marciano popularized undefeated records. Used to be that a fighter was an unknown quantity until he lost. He learn a lot about a guy but seeing how he handles his first loss.

 

But careful matchmaking and marketing angles were always a part of boxing. Here is a good take from Bill Squires:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/36875030?searchTerm=fitzsimmons interview&searchLimits=

 

What do you mean by "managed" ?

 

John L. Sullivan vs. James J. Corbett ?

 

I really meant to say 'Modern Day' boxing,,,,,,

 

I mean that sombody signed him before his profesional debut, with a view to making him a future champion or contender and quided him to that position via a series of logical steps.