Why a loss is not the end...

I've been mulling this over for the past few days... "Why is it, that a fighter loses he's discounted by so many"? - I sit around and hear casual fans state things like "David Haye lost against Klitschko... he's useless" or "Khan got knocked out again because he's crap!".

Often, these casual fans are the same people who can easily get excited about an MMA fight and talk about how "sick" the fight was, yet, NO mention of the loss?

Why is it, that in two sports that share similar ethics (one man vs. another) have such different outlooks?

Without mentioning Khan's loss again on this site, it's clear that maybe we are a fickle bunch, or at least the populas are. Let's take a big name PPV UFC fighter for example... Forrest Griffin, he stands at a record of 19 wins - 7 losses (5 of which were KO's), yet he was a fine example of a guy who would fight the best to be the best. He was critically acclaimed for doing so and people found him an exciting guy to watch, come win OR lose. Rich Franklin, 29 - 6 (5 by KO) - He's seen as one of the best also?

In a day and age where the "0" is all so important, it seems that this fixation on it has almost ruined the sport (From match-making, to promoting and the mystical P4P rankings).

I applaud guys like Chisora who, with 4 losses on his fairly infant 19 fight record, has come out and fought the best he can! Compare him to the American equivilent Seth Mitchell... How many "development fights" does the guy need really? I know who the general public know more about, be it for the right or wrong reasons... win or lose.

My point being, people love the UFC for some reason and my only guess is that a loss is not the end of the world. TRUE Champions/Warriors/Gladiators or whatever you want to market them as, DO come back... regardless of the way they lose their fight.

Victor Ortiz? He's exciting isn't he? Who cares about the losses. Marcos Maidana? I'd watch him again! Michael Katsidis? He's been a great ambassador! Glen Johnson? Won a World Title with a shock win and ALWAYS comes to fight... I could go on and on and on.

These are the guys I remember because they come to fight, doesn't matter who, doesn't matter where.

(Disclaimer - I honestly don't believe Enzo Mac or RJJ can qualify for my post).

Good OP. Those same people who criticise a boxer for losing will, on another, claim that a loss means noting. In truth it depends on the boxer and more often than not, the mood of the poster.

I put an '0' on the same level as longevity/an extended record. Nice to have but not the be all and end all.

Knocking over nobodies and calling them title defences doesn't garner any favour from me, similarly many '0's can be a bit padded and even if not it doesn't mean there hasn't be some luck along the way. Floyd's is the most famous '0' in the business though he could've lost it fairly early doors v Castillo.

Great post, school project. If only the masses viewed a loss in such a way.

I guess UFC's infancy is very much like boxing's infancy, in that people fight and then, win or lose, fight again at a similar level. The very finest boxers of all time have several losses on their records, yet it diminishes their status very little. It's how it should be, and it's how I'd like it to be. It makes for more interesting fights (nobody 'protecting' their record), allows you to see who the legitimate champion is at each weight class, and of course helps the development of a fighter far more than padding a record with cans ever will.

Would guess the crux is who the losses are coming against, for Chisora we can be reasonably forgiving because for a guy with less than 20 fights Haye, Vitali and Helenius is decent company to be keeping. However if the losses all come against a certain type of fighter or against guys you should not be losing against if you are being touted for big things it is a little less understandable. However I do agree with the general point that losses should not be the death knell for a fighter because surely a guy like Chisora learns more in losing to Vitali than he ever would in blowing over some glass jawed journeyman.

rowley wrote:Would guess the crux is who the losses are coming against, for Chisora we can be reasonably forgiving because for a guy with less than 20 fights Haye, Vitali and Helenius is decent company to be keeping. However if the losses all come against a certain type of fighter or against guys you should not be losing against if you are being touted for big things it is a little less understandable. However I do agree with the general point that losses should not be the death knell for a fighter because surely a guy like Chisora learns more in losing to Vitali than he ever would in blowing over some glass jawed journeyman.

Who would you have in the latter category Rowley, Khan? Wlad? Lewis?

Was thinking of Khan when I wrote it mate, not to single him out particularly more because he was fresh in mind and he has just picked up a second loss to a guy with a bit of a dig on him, which does suggest a certain flaw in his game or physical make up.

Khan could become the next Naseem. Heart gone.

Why do you casuals call them crap when they lose? To quote Roger Mayweather "Mos' people don't know shhhheeee' 'bawt Boxin'"

TopHat24/7 wrote:I put an '0' on the same level as longevity/an extended record. Nice to have but not the be all and end all.

Knocking over nobodies and calling them title defences doesn't garner any favour from me, similarly many '0's can be a bit padded and even if not it doesn't mean there hasn't be some luck along the way. Floyd's is the most famous '0' in the business though he could've lost it fairly early doors v Castillo.

Spot on TopHat!

It's all about longevity... were we to know that the once invincible RJJ would manage to collect so many KO losses? Nope, but he came back but that longevity is long gone, same with Enzo sadly. Would it also matter that Floyd picked up a loss? To him yes, but not to me or any other fan. He would be acclaimed either way!

Id disagree about the longetivity, I think its quite important. Somebody like Jones actually did have good longetivity at the top. Over a decade.

Fighting way past ones best and picking up losses is different. I would allow far greater slack for that.

It also depends to a large extent what one acheives in a given period. If you can pack alot of acheivement into a short space of time then the longetivity factor is less of an issue. But I do think being able to stay at the top for a long time is something quite impressive.

What I was getting at was that longevity sustained by a padded record is something I place very little weight on. I was thinking Calzaghe, where his longevity as champ is an over-weighted feature in my opinion as it featured to many chumps in faux title defences.

46 fights unbeaten but the first 40 weren't against top-ranked dangerous opposition, even though 17 of them were title defences. Reid, Woodhall, Veit and maybe Mitchell the only few credible title defences.

All good posts lads.

I heavily follow MMA like boxing and my opinion would be re: MMA is as owen says, MMA fighters at the top generally fight the very best every fight and rarely have any 'easy' fights inbetween tough ones, which many boxers do.

MMA fans recongnise and respect they have to consistently fight the top guys to remain a champ or to be considered worthy to fight for a belt.

Boxing fans applaud Froch for his last 7 or so fights, in MMA this would be the bog standard run for a champ.

One thing to consider is the fighters don't select their opponants as they have exclusive contracts and the UFC match them, which prevents most of the problems boxing has with the quality of some of the champs opposition pedigree.

Back to boxing - I think unbeaten records have too much attention and creates the problem of fighters padding their records due to fear of losing and hence being labelled 'exposed/overated/shot' etc.

Some of the criticisms on Khan are a bit harsh but I think the reason for much of it was it was a loss very few expected and he doesn't seem to have shown any improvement in defence and in-fighting.

Khan will come back I'm sure but will probably be less vocal about being the man to beat Floyd which is a good thing!

Loss isn't the end, but surely it depends how you lose...

I don't applaud Chisora......He thought Fury was a bumbling plodder and lost....fought Helenius and "lost" who was there for the taking! and then got a gift shot at Vitali!!! probably when he thought his career was over...

Then after losing 3/4 gets a million+ for fighting Haye!!

As for Khan he's like Holyfield without the chin...

When Holy gets tagged he loses all sense of caution and tries to slug it out....because of his chin he's succeeded on some occasions..

Khan cannot change this....it's natural instinct and to me he's a busted flush now......guys with a dig just have to survive the early rounds and wait for him to get careless!!!

Sad but true........

Great post.

I think a loss is not the end too, but... if you get pancaked then it could be. IMO, Ortiz and Khan are done, not because of the losses, but because they got completely spanked.

I think Khan will come back but I'll say it again, when you haven't the ability to take a shot and then not only that but can't fight on the inside and don't have a decent defence you can never make it to the top.

I'm glad he lost, he got all air headed and was mouthing off about Mayweather slowing down while he was fresh and how he could be the man to take the '0' off him yet took his eye off Garcia. I'm glad he's gone home with his tail between his legs because I got no time for the guy unfortunately. Very overated.

owen10ozzy wrote:I think Floyd has kept his 0 long enough now that he wont ever risk it...

Floyd knows that because he has the 0 and Pacman doesn't it gives him an advantage when discussing just who was the best of the two.

I don't think they will ever fight now and if they do then for me it's to late to add anything to either legacy (well certainly no where as much as if they had fought in their prime)...

Once Floyd is out of jail I see him having 2 maybe at most 3 more fights. I expect each to be well thought out and planned...

and I dont expect any of them to realistically stand a chance of beating him.

Can't remember where but I saw someone mentioning that Garcia has put himself in line now and I agree...

For Floyd it is an opponent coming off a big win...he is unbeaten...but Floyd knows he is extremely beatable...

He can be marketed as a big prospect..young name...and get people to buy into the fact he may just have what it takes to win.

I'd back Floyd to a 118-110 cakewalk. Saw little impressive about Garcia and PBF would telegraph his punches so well he could do that trick of talking to the commentary team mid-round again.