when did over protection and undefeted records become the fad?

Lots of fighters turned pro under managers who had a view to making them champions.

 

Obviously neither Johnson nor Dempsey were protected before they held the title. Verry much the reverse.

Even looking at their title reigns they wern't exactly protected by modern standards. For example while Dempsey failed to meet a couple of top challengers, he was defending his title against people who were probably among the top ten contenders at the time.

 

I don't know when it started, but Joe Calzaghe and Floyd Mayweather took it to a whole new transparent level in the 2000s.

 

Who pre Louis?

 

Money...Plain and simple. There was a time when fighters fought for thier supper as well as a title shot so they had to fight often against all comers. Once in awhile they would have a loss here and there but kept on fighting. TV didn't help either. All the exposure meant that fighters were brought along carefully so as to not not ruin a potential big money fight down the road. The top fighters fight what...every year and a half? That's ridiculous! And you have to pay 50$ on pay per view to see it! One loss could mean less millions and being devalued by a less than knowledgeable public. Money is ruining all sports including Boxing. The almighty dollar has taken the place of pride and dignity in sports.

 

Well, several white hopes of the Jack Johnson era, for starters.
Tommy Loughran was well-managed.
Jess Willard.

Lots of fighters we've never heard of.

 

great thread and as usual, great insight by janitor. i have very little to offer it terms of when it became a fad but as an example, marciano is rated so highly almost soley because he's undefeated. whether or not his skills and abilities match such high all time ranking (they very well may) he's often rated in the top 5 heavies, with a typical reason "he retired undefeated". so did lazlo pap, so did ricardo lopez. frankly the idea that no one was able to defeat someone in their careers leads to a twisted belief that no one would EVER be able to defeat them. the thing is, post rocky careers weren't always protected but guys like monzon and to a degree ali felt it was very important to avoid losses, in monzons case at a cost of questions around his resume and the decisions he received

 

I dont think George or Firpo would have been top ten of there day with out the Tex machine hypeing them up.

Firpo kos a wore out Jess Willard who is almost 45 and boom he lands a title shot vs Dempsey.

 

I agree with this here.

It's a ****ing discgrace as well, people pay way too much attention to a fighters past discretions.

It's what they're doing right now that matters the most, if you fight the best or most dangerous competitors (like a fighter should) then chances are you just might pick up a loss or two along the way... it's how you recover from that loss that defines a true fighter imo.

 

If Roy 'Cut-n-Shoot' Harris lost one fight, he would have been cast aside, as another local southwestern record builder.

 

Firpo would certainly have been ranked. He was ranked in 1924 (the first year that rankings were published) despite having lost to Dempsey and Wills.

Carpintier held the "White heavyweight title", European heavyweight title" and "Lightheavyweight title" going into his fight with Dempsey, so I think he would have been ranked somwhere.

 

He got ranked for pretty much pushing Dempsey out of the ring. After 1923, people were claiming Dempsey Firpo was the greatness fight of all time. I think that was the reason that Firpo got ranked in the top ten.