Why does 1 loss "end" a career?

People are stupid. Journo's especially should be more intelligent when discussing a fight or a fighter to a large audience. Ricky got beat by the best, he will go onto the beat world champions again and will make more money than that journo will in his entire career.

Ricky Hattons career is definately not over.

 

Good question.

 

Could it be that we as fans and the boxing establishment have put too much emphasis on boxers being undefeated to where boxers are afraid of losing their 0s and when they do lose, it has a deep psychological impact to where some boxers are never the same?

 

That about sums it up.

 

One Lost To Me Does'nt End A Career The Media Always Puttin There 2 Cents In When They Are Suppose To Be Nutral.

 

yep

 

definitely the case in the uk. once a fighter gets his first 0, people like Frank Warren consider him damaged goods.

wish they had more of the mexican attitude over here

 

Hatton will have learned more from that single loss than from 6 - 7 ordinary wins..

Lennox Lewis would never have been as great as he eventually was had he never had his weaknesses exposed initially by McCall..

Hatton has plenty left, he just really needs to stay at light welterweight..

 

I think you're half right. Promoters marketing fighters as undefeated has been very common in the last 20 years, that's one of the main reasons there are so many protected boxers fighting today.

 

Because all the hype is on being undefeated, oftentimes as a priority over everything else.

Which can make a joke out of some careers, as soft touches and tomato cans are set up to preserve an undefeated record instead of real useful experiences against live opponents.

I can think of some seriously good fighters that have multiple losses on their record, because they fought and learnt from the best. And because of that, they became better fighters than any kid that comes along and racks up 35-0 or whatever on no-one of note.

This protection of fighters has really become one of the biggest detriments to boxing.
Not saying it never happened, even decades ago, but it seems worse these days.

 

This is a good question. Fans make too much of one or two losses on a fighters resume. I'm always hearing about Lennox two losses, or Wlad's three, or Hatton's one.

Anybody can have an off night, and no one is invincible. Some people have unrealistic expectations of boxers - we shouldn't be so hard on them.

 

It is because there are some stupid fans that demolish a boxer after a loss.

 

I think fighters often learn from defeat, but I don't think Ricky gained any wisdom from that match-up. The only things he will have learnt, is that Floyd is better than him at everything and he needs to get back to being a bit choosy.

 

The problem is that undefeated records give an impression of perfection and invincebility that appeals to some very deeprooted part of the human psyche. Whether we wanna admit it or not, some part of us just wants to believe in "the invincible fighter", we wanna believe that there's a guy out there that can do anything. The industry has observed that and now uses undefeated records as a marketing tool. So now, undefeated records have little to do anymore with being nearly impossible to beat, like it did when Robinson lost just once in 132 fights, and that to a guy he also beat 5 times, but have everything to do with marketing. And sadly, outside of the more knowledgeable boxing followers (and there aren't that many of those) it's a marketing strategy that works pretty damn well.