This should probably be on the general forum to be honest! Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Hector Camacho, Chavez, Ali, Foreman.... They all had numerous losses! Lennox Lewis was sparked out twice by average fighters and he was the last GREAT heavyweight and will be for a long time. We can blame the likes of Floyd Mayweather for all this rubbish with staying undefeated, but we all as fans place alot on staying undefeated and its become wide spread. Young fighters these days are written off when they're defeated... Mitchell was hyped as a future World Champ by many on here and now he has been beaten, everyone's opinion has changed after 9 minutes of action against a tough experienced fighter! Not so long ago Amir Khan was written off... Look where he is now! The sport is on a downward spiral these days IMO, with the emergence of UFC etc suddenly a sport steeped in history is becoming 2nd choice to a bunch of puffs in tight pants rolling around!! Fighters will willingly avoid one and another to keep there 0 because of what it can do to them interms of hype but mentally these days! Sad as it sounds we wont ever have the times again were the best fight the best End of the day i think its down to us as boxing fans to raise the stock of fighters that go out there give it there all and get spanked who cares, if they brought entertainment to us, then theyve earnt there money rather than paying for a money to watch a boring fighter, i.e Floyd Mayweather!
The undefeated obsession in boxing is tragic. I mean what other sport out there is so obsessed with remaining unbeaten? Do you see tennis commentators acting as if there is no way back when Federer loses? How about Tiger Woods? It just doesn't happen in those sports. And say what you want about the UFC but those guys remain big names with records like 13-9.
It's a little different with sports like tennis and golf but this obsession with remaining undefeated actually hurts most fighters' development. Sometimes losing is what builds true champions. You have to say that Khan is a good case in point at the moment. He's probably a better fighter now than he would have been had he not lost to Prescott.
and the funny thing is that guys with the 0 99% of the time are laughed at. The few that retain the 0 like Floyd put us in awe and rightly so but the guys who are hype jobs just make us chuckle.
Tennis or golf players will be back playing another tournament against all the best players in the world next week. In boxing a defeated fighter might take a couple of years to get another chance at the same level. This is where the lack of structure and lack of a central governing body hurts boxing and allows the natural ****itude of the majority of boxing fans to shine through.
I think the super 6 is highlighting the emphasis on the 0 is just bollocks. Hopefully this rubs off on boxing in general
It is a joke the way most fans treat losses, all it achieves is to stop the top guys fighting eachother and means appalling undercards with prospects beating up cans in boring non-events. All fighters will have lost before in the amatuers anyway Be honest though, I bet all of the posters above have made a big deal about fighters having off nights and losing to lesser opposition before. I don't blame anyone, the length of time between fights means there is far more talking in boxing than there needs to be The idea is ridiculous. The thought of claiming Federer is 'shot' when he loses makes me laugh though :yep
Casual boxing fans now a days are pretty naive. All great fighters need to lose, and there are very few exceptions to prove the rule. The difference is, in the past great fighters fought better opposition more regularly than fighters have fights now a days: Below is a list of Great fighters of the past and their win/loss/draw/no contest+no decision records against fellow IBHOF'ers and The Ring ranked top ten fighters/champions, to back up my point: Muhammad Ali: 33-5 Ezzard Charles: 40-18-1 Joe Louis: 32-3 Archie Moore: 45-15-4 Ray Robinson: 50-15-1 Although a lot of these great fighters losses were at the end of thier careers, it still shows despite long careers they regularly met the best opposition available, 3/4 times a year, and a defeat was not the end of the world. Now a days some top fighters fight 3/4 fights every two years, and sometimes not even against the top opposition available...
It seems worse in the UK but Warren used to be obsessed with handpicking his fighters opponents to keep them undefeated and then once the opposition got tougher they were not fully prepared for it. IMO Kev mitchell should have been in these type of fights 2 or 3 years back with all the proper fights beforehand to get him ready. Warren these days has started to allow his fighters to take more risks but thats probably because they all end up leaving him.
Mitchell can certainly come back and a coach can learn what parts of his game to change/fix after watching the fight. A loss tells a million tales.
