Do boxing fans put too much on an undefeated Record?

A lot of the reason I think big fights don't happen is fighter and promoters seem to not want to risk their record. How much of this is our fault as boxing fans? We see people like Floyd wait to fight certain people till their older or diminished, or we see Bradley avoid Khan because he wants a big money fight and a loss on his record would make that go away. The best fights of any given year seem to be with a couple fighters who have some losses on their record.
Why is it that in MMA a couple losses doesn't seem to matter as much as a couple losses in boxing? How do we as fans change the culture to try and get the best fights made when they should happen?

i dont think that its all the fans. i believe that with how boxing works, its becoming a huge marketing scheme. for example, if alvarez and mayweather fought right now, its a nice way to catch everybody's attention (mostly casual boxing fans) to say that both are undefeated. then its like saying that they both are unstoppable when in reality it can just mean that either on or even both were protected fighters.

but i agree with you that the whole undefeated thing isnt a good thing for boxing because it means so much when it shouldnt. like you said, good fights arent made because of the chance of losing their "0." they would rather lose to a superstar and make big money instead of losing to a good fighter and not making as much and then having to climb back up the ladder a bit. i understand it from a fighters standpoint, but once you have lost once, it seems like the fighter usually fights a little better competition.

Boxing fans dont care about undefeated records that much. They just want good fights and good fighters to face off. Gatti is in the Boxing Hall of Fame and it AINT because of his stellar undefeated record. The people who care about the records are the promoters and the television companies. Its hard to sell a guy with 8 or 9 losses to the causual fan.

Just Mayweather fans.

I think it matters because of how inactive the top fighters are. It's tough to say who the best is because so many fights don't happen because guys only fight twice a year. So the value of each fight goes up a lot. That and people are a lot more demanding from sports figures. It's "oh, I'm not watching the boxer ever? I'm gonna change the channel."

Diego408 wrote:Just Mayweather fans.

lmao

Just the fans that yell "YOLO" and post pictures of themselves in their bathrooms on Facebook.

I'm not saying all fans do this or just the casual fans say this, but I've seen boxing fans say a guy is exposed or is no good based on one fight. I've seen it before when Sergio lost to Margarito, or when Cotto lost to Margarito, also when Klitschko lost to Sanders, and the Khan lost to Prescott, and most recent I've heard it with Dulorme and his lost to Abregu. Granted these are the times where things mostly turned out good for the fighter that lost and for everyone one of those there have been a few that were exposed or truly weren't any good. But shouldn't we give young fighters, especially the ones who take a step up, a chance to prove they can learn from a loss before we call them exposed or garbage.

i think that its the type of loss and who you lose to. also, exposed can mean a weakness rather than a fighter as a whole. for example, khan losing to prescott exposed a weak chin and then he was exposed again when he fought garcia. i dont think that as a fighter he was exposed as being a fraud, but that he had a huge weakness exposed that many fighters could capitalize on. i dont think that one loss is being exposed as a fighter, but i do think that even wins can expose fighters. media just doesnt focus on the weakness if the fighter won.