Why do people like to jump the gun and say a fighter is ruined after only 1 loss???

Cause people are ****ing ******ed.

 

People love to hate.

 

they say it when it fits their agenda, but mostly losses are overrated, look at leonard,barrera,louis,lewis,hopkins,pacquiao,duran,hearns,hagler all atg's who managed to do very well after losing their first fight.

 

some people like to "live" through fighters and i guess want them to be "invincible".

this i suppose is a reason

 

The Marketing Machine is to blame, you lose a fight, you lose your credability, you lose your TV Deals, you lose your endorsments, some even lose there fan base (i.e. sugar cane Mosley).

But if you lose in an exciting but not devastating fight people will want to see you again, thats the difference between Berto loss and David Haye's.

Berto= Future Haye= Expired

 

The Ortiz thing is what gets me. People all over this board kept saying how Berto was overrated due to his suspect defense and chin. Ortiz beats him in a very close, back and forth fight and now he's going to beat Mayweather?

 

Those are just people who want Mayweather to lose more so than Ortiz to win.

 

From what I've seen, when people go calling one fighter "shot", it's not the "shot" fighter that's the primary target of criticism. On the contrary, it seems to be about criticizing or discrediting that fighter's opponent.

 

ruined ,past prime or hypejob

 

This

and This



ANd I would add that these are not fans of the sports.


They are fanboys so the guy they like (or hate for some even more ******ed people) is more important to them than the sport.

 

:roll:

Please...don't act as if a majority of people thinks Ortiz will win...


And I'm not shitting on that fight either.

I expect a good fight.

 

Couldn't agree more. It's ****ing dumb. The worst example I have ever seen of this is the insane number of people who agreed that Mikkel Kessler was "ruined" by his loss to Joe Calzaghe. Kessler, already a unified world champion himself in his mid-late 20s, goes to the backyard of his much more seasoned and experienced opponent, wins the first third of the fight, gets outboxed for the next two-thirds and loses a clear but not wide UD, isn't dropped or stopped, and doesn't really take any punishment at all. The guy performed well, but came up a little short. And yet, so many cretins on here were saying that he was "ruined" by this... which was of couse proven wrong by the fact that Kessler went on to regain a world title and take the zero of Carl Froch in a war. ****ing idiots.

Marco Antonio Barrera got stopped in a shock upset to Junior Jones early in his world championship career - came back, and is now an HOF-calibre legend of his era.

Kostya Tszyu got stopped in a shock upset to Vince Phillips early in his world championship career - came back, and is now an HOF-calibre legend of his era.

It is rare to the point of virtually unheard of that one defeat can "ruin" a fighter. People need to realize this and stop pedalling this idiotic myth.

 

Sometimes it does actually apply.

Fighters can be ruined in a single night (that can just so happen to be their first loss).

There are many cases in boxing history of guys ruined after a single loss, and just as many cases of guys who were still fresh as daisies after losses in double digit (with several by knockout even).

It all depends.

While the OP does have a point about the idiot masses making too much of a fuss about record blemishes and perhaps sometimes making haste to proclaim someone finished once their cherry is popped - it IS still quote possible for a single war to leave one permanently in shambles. Hell, a boxer can be ruined by a WIN. It depends on a lot.

 

This :good

People fail to realise that we learn more about boxers who take chances and lose, rather than have protected '0's