View Full Version : What Great Fighters Do You Least Like To Watch?


Southpaw16BF
01-11-2010, 06:27 PM
This should be interesting. What great fighters do you least like watching?

It can be for one reason or another. Due to his style or tactics, or you just dislike watching his fights.....

dagrtst
01-11-2010, 06:37 PM
Wladimir Klitschko.

He's a great champion, don't get me wrong, just not an entertaining one.

I'd also like to add Nikolay Valuev, Vitali Klitschko and most of the heavyweight division.

cooper5
01-11-2010, 06:55 PM
Perhaps Willie pep, not overly exciting but won rounds.

Ziggy Stardust
01-11-2010, 07:55 PM
This should be interesting. What great fighters do you least like watching?

It can be for one reason or another. Due to his style or tactics, or you just dislike watching his fights.....

Hector Camacho and anyone who "fights" in a similar vein ie. Floyd Mayweather.

John Ruiz and any other octopuses.

Wlad Klitschko and fighters with similar non-existant work-rates (I mean, my God: If you struggle to throw 25 punches in a round don't wonder why people label you a bore).

Poet

Earl Hickey
01-11-2010, 07:58 PM
Hector Camacho and anyone who "fights" in a similar vein ie. Floyd Mayweather.

John Ruiz and any other octopuses.

Wlad Klitschko and fighters with similar non-existant work-rates (I mean, my God: If you struggle to throw 25 punches in a round don't wonder why people label you a bore).

Poet

He said Great fighters

Ziggy Stardust
01-11-2010, 08:01 PM
He said Great fighters

Good point! Problem is, if they fight in the above mentioned manner not only will I not watch them but they have no claim to greatness either :D

Poet

Thread Stealer
01-11-2010, 08:05 PM
Jack Johnson.

Unless I'm really having trouble sleeping.

Southpaw16BF
01-11-2010, 10:20 PM
Jack Johnson.

Unless I'm really having trouble sleeping.

Really? I enjoy Johnson. He isnt exciting, but he is the true art of boxing, hit and not be hit. Such a skilled and defensive heavyweight.

The best defensive heavyweight of all time, imo

mickey malone
01-11-2010, 11:14 PM
Bernard Hopkins.. Effective but tedious.. He defends himself well while breaking down a fighters will more so than his body, and it all gets a bit too predictable..
Even the KO of DLH, I don't think was truly intended..

Pernell Whitaker.. Defensive genius, offensive snore bore.. You knew that when he did let his hands go, the opponent was'nt going anywhere.. Kind of takes the excitement away..

Hector Camacho.. On the odd occasion when forced into the trenches has produced incredible toughness, but by in large has spent most of his career, winning fights while going backwards.. An incredible talent, but for 12 rounds? Please!.. Should have chosen a career doing tug of war...

Sven Ottke.. I would'nt consider him great by any means, but when it comes to boring fighters, he's always worth a mention..

sonnyboyx2
01-12-2010, 02:39 AM
Macro Antonio Barrera
Joe Calzaghe

Dynamite Kid
01-12-2010, 03:15 AM
Larry Holmes was not the most exciting outside of Weaver, Norton, Williams, Snipes,Shavers 2 fights imo.

Dynamite Kid
01-12-2010, 03:42 AM
I think there is something to be said for fighters who have lulls in the action.

Roy Jones was quite tedious to watch at times imo, now the reason i say that is because of the amount of lulls there were in his fight where he would do too much waiting for the opponent.

Larry Holmes was the same imo, he would hide behind the jab, feint a lot and there were generally lulls in the action.

Muhammad Ali might not be considered more exciting than those guy and he did use a lot of the ring and jab consistently but here is the thing, Muhammad Ali was always doing something whether that be jabbing or moving he would rarely leave lulls in the action like the aforementioned.

JAB5239
01-12-2010, 05:18 AM
Macro Antonio Barrera
Joe Calzaghe

Barrera seems like a strange pick. Any particular reason why Sonny?

sonnyboyx2
01-12-2010, 06:51 AM
Barrera seems like a strange pick. Any particular reason why Sonny?

nothing against Barrera and the great career he has had.. i first stated watchin Barrera back when he beat Jesse Benavedes in 96 threw to his loss against Amir Khan..He just never excited me as a fighter of his calibre should have, his style IMO never made for exciting fights.. his 3 fights with Erik Morales are deamed as all time classics, yet IMO they are nothing out of the ordinary.. i had Morales winning all 3 by close decision.. i am not knocking Barrera because clearly he was a very good fighter yet not a fighter who i dash to my fight-film collection every saturday night and grab a DVD of his fights to watch.

Junito-Rulez
01-12-2010, 07:17 AM
Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, John Ruiz, Hasim Rahman, Corey Spinks/

BennyST
01-12-2010, 08:11 AM
nothing against Barrera and the great career he has had.. i first stated watchin Barrera back when he beat Jesse Benavedes in 96 threw to his loss against Amir Khan..He just never excited me as a fighter of his calibre should have, his style IMO never made for exciting fights.. his 3 fights with Erik Morales are deamed as all time classics, yet IMO they are nothing out of the ordinary.. i had Morales winning all 3 by close decision.. i am not knocking Barrera because clearly he was a very good fighter yet not a fighter who i dash to my fight-film collection every saturday night and grab a DVD of his fights to watch.

I'm sorry man, but what? Ok, if you weren't overly excited about the second two fights, I could sort of understand, but no one can say that their first fight was not easily one of the most skillful, well fought, action fights of all time. It had everything you could possibly want in a fight. Great skill, non stop action, drama, back and forth trading of the highest calibre. How can you say that it's just nothing out of the ordinary. It was everything out of the ordinary and even for the most ardent purist who hates any trading of any sort because boxing is about hitting and being hit, they regard it as a classic.

You can't not like that fight if you are a fan of boxing. Round five alone
had more action than in forty normal fights. It wasn't like it was Bobby Chacon or Gatti either. I sometimes struggle to watch their fights because they just get hammered from pillar to post until the other guy is too tired and then come back. Great stuff but I end up just feeling sorry for them usually. This fight wasn't anything like those either though. Pure skilled action between two great fighters at their absolute peaks.

Not only that, but I can also understand you scoring the first two for Morales, but he just simply didn't win the third fight. It was a close but very clear win for Barrera. A much wider, clearer victory than either of the other two fights. If you think Morales won it, you either don't know how to score or just have something against Barrera. That wasn't one of those fights where you could say "Well, I liked the boxer more and he jabbed him to death" or "I prefer body punching which is why I gave it to him", because he just lost that fight. Sometimes one fighter just loses no matter what style of boxing you like more. Morales lost that third fight. Lost too many rounds much too clearly.

sonnyboyx2
01-12-2010, 09:06 AM
I'm sorry man, but what? Ok, if you weren't overly excited about the second two fights, I could sort of understand, but no one can say that their first fight was not easily one of the most skillful, well fought, action fights of all time. It had everything you could possibly want in a fight. Great skill, non stop action, drama, back and forth trading of the highest calibre. How can you say that it's just nothing out of the ordinary. It was everything out of the ordinary and even for the most ardent purist who hates any trading of any sort because boxing is about hitting and being hit, they regard it as a classic.

You can't not like that fight if you are a fan of boxing. Round five alone
had more action than in forty normal fights. It wasn't like it was Bobby Chacon or Gatti either. I sometimes struggle to watch their fights because they just get hammered from pillar to post until the other guy is too tired and then come back. Great stuff but I end up just feeling sorry for them usually. This fight wasn't anything like those either though. Pure skilled action between two great fighters at their absolute peaks.

Not only that, but I can also understand you scoring the first two for Morales, but he just simply didn't win the third fight. It was a close but very clear win for Barrera. A much wider, clearer victory than either of the other two fights. If you think Morales won it, you either don't know how to score or just have something against Barrera. That wasn't one of those fights where you could say "Well, I liked the boxer more and he jabbed him to death" or "I prefer body punching which is why I gave it to him", because he just lost that fight. Sometimes one fighter just loses no matter what style of boxing you like more. Morales lost that third fight. Lost too many rounds much too clearly.

Benny.. i understand and appreciate your points of view and i agree their first fight was a great fight just like you described it... like i said`i aint knocking Barrera` but the thread is asking "what great fighters do you least like to watch".. and Barrera came to mind.

we obviously score fights differently as i had Morales winning that 1st fight... when i say we score fights differently i am not trashing your way of scoring, but my way is kinda different from most armchair fans, reason being that a number of years ago (20-25yrs) i read a very interesting article by Hall of Fame referee Arthur Mercante who wrote that when scoring a fight, he breaks the round down into 3 seperate minutes, fighter A can press the fight for the first 2 minutes of a round throwing a jab every 10 seconds or so and landing very little else, fighter B in the last 20 seconds can land a savage 6 punch salvo that has the crowd on their feet.. yet you must score that round to fighter A who bossed 2 minutes of the round and landed the most punches albeit not the hardest punches but still clean scoring punches....whenever i watch a fight i always have this in mind and have one-eye on the time as it comes up during the round...
as an example of Arthur Mercante`s theory, i put it to the test when watching the Holmes vs Norton fight and i had Norton winning by taking the final round...i always score fights this way because i find it fasinating & the correct way to do it... who are we or anyone else for that matter to disagree with Arthur Mercante who referee and a judge for Fight of the Century along with hundreds of other great fights of the last 50yrs+

You are correct about Chacon & Gatti... But it was their `come from behind, never say die` approach that made them so appealing to fight-fans, the likelyhood is that Barrera would most likely be favoured to beat both Chacon & Gatti in mythical match-ups, but you know who the audience would be behind and which fighter would have them on their feet.