Are some boxing pundits killing the sport?

I recently watched two of our up and coming SBW (Quigg and Framton) and noticed a worrying trend throughout. There's talk of a showdown between the two fighters in the future (something I'm sure many fans will relish) but some of the comments made by the commentators made me worry about the state of our sport.

Johnny Nelson seemed to believe that for Framton to become a major star he simply had to remain unbeaten and the commentator of the Quigg fight suggested that Scott's aura of invincibility had been shattered once he'd been put on the deck..only to then suggest two rounds later that he was the real deal as he showed he could come back from adversity.

Many of us have argued vehemently that one defeat shouldn't herald the end of a fighter and, as long as he learns from the mistakes made during that loss, there's no reason they can't make advances up the ladder. We've also argued that fighters shouldn't always be protected by their promotors as a foray on the big stage often ends in disaster. However, many people seem to keen to write off fighters following a loss (or even a poor performance) lambasting them as overprotected hype jobs or similar.

History shows that a fighter who suffers an early setback can still make it big and that some young fighters thrive on challenges yet our supposedly respected commentators are telling us that protecting the '0' is everything.

Are they wrong to do so? Are they hampering a fighter's propects by suggesting that a loss always a bad thing and are they being complicit in pulling the wool over the public's eyes?

poor pundits may be annoying Dave, but in terms of killing the sport they are way down the list - they are more like vultures pecking on a carcass than the lions than killed it- the increasingly ludicrous governing bodies and their ever increasing numbers of weights and titles are the biggest villians - get back to one champion in each weight, no super champions, diamond champions, champions in meritus, interim champions etc and sport would regain some much needed credability- it may even warrant decent commentators again.

Anything to get away from baby davettes crying eh? Depends who it is - casual fans will seriously take note of the commentator/pundit whereas we'd probably come on here and abuse him for a few days I don't think they are holding the fighters back by suggesting losing is such a bad thing - even casual fans flocked back to amir - thats all down to whether the boxer comes back. I do however think they pull the wool over peoples eyes and you kinda get this - oh hype job hype job - well if you believed the hype then of course its a hype job - it isn't his fault you got caught up in it.

I think your bang on David.

We do it all the time on here after seeing a young domestic fighter get beat, then the "he got found out" clans appear. Then Sky take a bit of a backward step with them and the fighter can in turn lose a lot of confidence as the "experts" claim to be big, you need to be unbeaten.

The likes of Ricky Burns who I would never have had as someone who could pull some of the world title fight performances out of the bag is a good example.

It is a good test of their mentality as some fighters listen to these experts. But those who go back to basics and change their game are the ones who become contenders.

I think Frampton and Quigg have a few losses written in the stars. But I think Frampton has more in his locker to change his game if needed.

Most pundits talk Poopie and so i take their comments with a pinch of salt, very few i respect to the point where i take on board what they say. Young fighters would be wise not to always listen to them, they are not always right and is just their opinion.

Your not wrong Dave and they certainly don't help matters.

I find HBO commentary very cringing at times. They are so biased at times towards a specific fighter and is disgraceful!

One example was when I rewatched the Floyd vs JMM fight (lord knows why). Of course Floyd dominated JMM but they seemed to refuse to acknowledge a single good thing Marquez did!

The commentators seem to have their own motives when commentating at times .

I wouldnt really say so because I dont really think pundits hold much sway. I think fans these days re just as guilty of this kind of thing. Which fighters should avoid who, which fights dont make business sense, which fights are profitable, writing fighters off after a loss etc.

A loss shouldnt and doesnt necessarily mean the end of a fighter but in this day and age in boxing it can be a major setback and I think this is what the point being made by Nelson was. Nelson himself knows better than anyone that losses dont neccessarily mean the end but he will know from experience the impact they can have given how his career went.

Surely the guy on the screen/mike has a duty (of sorts) to tells fans that a loss ISN'T the end of a fighter's career. Adam Smith is now a big cheese re the Boxing on Sky and yet he's just as bad, if not worse, forever banging on about how "this week's featured fighter is one of our UNBEATEN prospects" as if being undefeated really is the only thing that matters.

Kell Brook - UNBEATEN and somehow World Class without ever really being tested at anything approaching World level. His biggest fight will be against Matthew Hatton who, as nice a bloke as he is, certainly isn't an elite fighter. However, week after week we hear people (many on here) touting Brook as a future p4p star, regurgiitating almost verbatim, the hyperbole that Smith and his ilk churn out on a regular basis.

George Groves - written off after being floored by Kenny Anderson only to become World Class after defeating the UNBEATEN James DeGale.

James DeGale - suddenly less than World Class after losing to the UNBEATEN George Groves

Maybe it's a symptom of society on a whole where people with a modicum of talent are now "world class" or "a legend" despite having done nothing remotely classy or legendary, but I would like to think our boxing pundits would avoid getting caught up in the hype and stick to the facts.