When did "protecting the 0" become the most important thing?

Maybe Cooney a but set the template a bit in the early 80's. He built a platform by beating name but washed fighters..Then he did step up, but only for the big one.

Foreman did a simular thing (ironically with a washed Cooney as the main name) and Bowe also.

Actualy, he was quite protected in his first carer as well.

Tyson's post prison career was also carefully managed, with Holy being a miscalculation.

Of course you also had fighters that took on everyone, but the carefully built up "perfect" records certianly was a feature.

 

I don't know but at one point before Canelo fought Munguia everyone in the Ring Magazines top ten at Super Middleweight under Canelo as champion were undefeated!

 

There isn't a broad rule for it. There are always fighters who are matched tough early, as well as fighters who aren't.

You could probably go back as far as guys like Lamar Clark, but, even then, you had guys like Pete Rademacher fighting Floyd Patterson in his first fight.

I was going to say the 1976 Olympic team. That team was the first to have big TV deals attached to them beginning with their pro debuts.

But, then again, Leon Spinks fought Ali in his seventh pro fight. So, that tosses that out.

It's not a hard and fast rule. But many fighters who sign with a TV network tend to be more concerned with it these days, it seems.

 

I think it is Floyds fault partly

but I also think it is more so about how much less tolerance there is for failure in todays world.

 

Anytime a boxer loses, it’s a rod that he gets beaten over the head with for the rest of his career by ignorant fans.

Douglas beating Tyson is a notable example. That loss is used frequently to tear down a legend. It’s shameful.

Jimmy Young vs George Foreman is another.

 

Even if aj had lost before that would have been an amazing upset

 

Some people pretend all Wlad has on his resume is 3 losses before he hit his prime.