I'm nothing but a selfish fight fan

[Roger Mellie]

Guy in your avatar is another great example of this quality.

Too true,although he couldnt resist it against Hagler,and for that I will be eternally grateful!

[PittyPat]

Hmm, interesting read and a lot of valid points.

Myself, I fall into the tactical chess match camp. It just tickles my brain in that sort of way. I like seeing a guy (i.e. Lennox, Calzaghe, Roy, Shugs, Berto, B-Hop sometimes) pick off their opponent from angles and distances, befuddling them for 12 rounds and looking like a teacher schooling a student in the process. It makes me appreciate the brain that goes into being a truly great boxer. If they land a bloody good bomb as well (Lennox-Rahman II), then so much the better.

However, no such matches are in my top 10 of all time. Granted, I prefer fights like that from a thinking man's perspective because it's interesting to try and score rounds between a pair of tacticians (or even one, who's simply making the other look 1-dimensional), but on the other hand all the fights I consider to be in my top 10 are absolute brutal wars - slugging, no missed punches, not much clinching, maybe some dirty tactics, hard bombs being landed and absorbed, and often a KO. Those are the kinda fights that make me go "WHOOOAAAA!!!!!!! ****!!!!! HOLY FUCKING ****!!!!!!!!"

Chess matches just make me clap and nod my head in appreciation of good, technical boxing. I usually go "Slick stuff, I love it! Keep it up". But one needs a bit of both to be a true fan of boxing. You can't just have one or the other, or else you'll be missing out on both the thinking game and the bomb-throwing war game. That's what makes boxing the sport of kings and legends.

[dans]

Hmm, interesting read and a lot of valid points.

Myself, I fall into the tactical chess match camp. It just tickles my brain in that sort of way. I like seeing a guy (i.e. Lennox, Calzaghe, Roy, Shugs, Berto, B-Hop sometimes) pick off their opponent from angles and distances, befuddling them for 12 rounds and looking like a teacher schooling a student in the process. It makes me appreciate the brain that goes into being a truly great boxer. If they land a bloody good bomb as well (Lennox-Rahman II), then so much the better.

However, no such matches are in my top 10 of all time. Granted, I prefer fights like that from a thinking man's perspective because it's interesting to try and score rounds between a pair of tacticians (or even one, who's simply making the other look 1-dimensional), but on the other hand all the fights I consider to be in my top 10 are absolute brutal wars - slugging, no missed punches, not much clinching, maybe some dirty tactics, hard bombs being landed and absorbed, and often a KO. Those are the kinda fights that make me go "WHOOOAAAA!!!!!!! ****!!!!! HOLY FUCKING ****!!!!!!!!"

Chess matches just make me clap and nod my head in appreciation of good, technical boxing. I usually go "Slick stuff, I love it! Keep it up". But one needs a bit of both to be a true fan of boxing. You can't just have one or the other, or else you'll be missing out on both the thinking game and the bomb-throwing war game. That's what makes boxing the sport of kings and legends.

Thanks for weighing in, good post. I agree with you about the whole technical fighters/fights thing too. For some reason I've always loved watching Winky Wright fight. It's painful and beautiful to watch all at the same time. Like you though, none of those fights fall into my favorites list.