Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boxer or Brawler

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by LarryX2011 View Post
    wouldnt call them brawlers
    I said two greats brawling not two great brawlers.

    Comment


    • #12
      I like both, just give me a good fight. If I had to pick, though, I would probably go with boxing. I can always appreciate good technique, even if the fight isn't that good. If you're just a raw brawler and the fight is only average or good, I'm not interested.

      Comment


      • #13
        Boxer-Puncher is the best style in boxing PERIOD.

        Comment


        • #14
          If the sport had nothing but "boxers", we would have to go to YMCA's just to be able to watch it because it wouldn't be televised. Its because of fighters who take risks to win fights that its a televised sport.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by SPREAD View Post
            That's what make you a real boxing fan casual fans thinking two boxers boxing each other is boring.
            I think the best fights are boxer vs swarmer, brawler, or slugger though

            Mayweather vs Hatton
            Hopkins vs Trinidad
            WHitaker vs Chavez

            "Boxing" shines its brightest when used against swarmers, brawlers, and sluggers. It really makes "boxing" distinct and different from just plain ol fighting.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by 2501 View Post
              If the sport had nothing but "boxers", we would have to go to YMCA's just to be able to watch it because it wouldn't be televised. Its because of fighters who take risks to win fights that its a televised sport.
              Quoted for mother****ing truth.





              You guys can thank the latinos mostly for this.

              Comment


              • #17
                A combination of both

                A guy like Cotto or Barrera is my favorite.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by 2501 View Post
                  If the sport had nothing but "boxers", we would have to go to YMCA's just to be able to watch it because it wouldn't be televised. Its because of fighters who take risks to win fights that its a televised sport.
                  not true at all man..alot of boxers are exciting

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Give me a brawler with some one quitta hitta power and that's my favorite to watch. You just can't beat the excitement of 2 men with big heart exchanging huge punches and then if it ends with a brutal KO.

                    Arturo Gatti, Mickey Ward, James Kirkland, Tyson, Kasiditis ect.

                    If I was a boxer I'd be a boxer/puncher though. They kick ass as well. Cotto is the perfect example. Not to mention he's as exciting as *****.

                    I think the worst fight is 2 technicians going at it. It's just so boring watching 2 fighters just circle all night with just a few jabs here and there that hardly even land at all. A brawler or boxer/puncher bring the excitement into boxing.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by LarryX2011 View Post
                      not true at all man..alot of boxers are exciting
                      If the sport was nothing but Mayweathers, Calderons, Broners, it would NOT be on TV. The sport was built commercially on brawlers and boxer/punchers. Historically, pure boxers or "boring" fighters have had to utilize additional methods to sell fights such as taking on a loud, brash, trash talking persona to generate public interests or throwing down flags of the opposing fighter's country.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP