Which type of fighter are u more of a fan of?

I have no preference but I have to admire their skills that's all. Some of my all time favourites are complete opposites. That's a good way of putting it. A lot of my very favorite fighters' styles are contrasting, but admiration for their respective skillsets is about even. Hence McClellan and Sweet Pea sharing space in my sig.

I like the kind of fighters that Nacho Beristain seems to train. Guys that are technically sound but at the same time like to mix it up. On the other hand though I appreciate the styles like Floyd Mayweather has. Yeah he may not take as many risks, but his quick punches, defense, and ring movement I appreciate too. In the end I like all kinds of fighters and don't just choose fighters that have that one particular style.

I'm a sucker for big power punchers, such as Berto or Cotto.

I have no preference but I have to admire their skills that's all. Some of my all time favourites are complete opposites. Michael Nunn, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Kirkland Laing, George Foreman, Ricky Hatton.

See .gif in signature.

I prefer fighters who use defence as offence, if you feel me?! A technical counter-puncher a la Roy Jones, James Toney, Mike Tyson could even be half-placed in this category. I think people who use offence as defence have misunderstood the consept of successful boxing. Mayweather used to be great to watch. Lately he's been a little too safety-first for my liking. I still laugh my ass off at people making a fool of themselves against him though.

I'd prefer watching Tyson, Foreman, Duran, Hearns, Pavlik, Tito, Cotto, Pacman, etc, anyday over watching Spinks, Winky, Bhop, Floyd, Malignaggi, etc. That's just my preference though. At the same time, JMM is one of my favorite fighters. Although he's considered a technical fighter, he fights with balls, and bangs when he has too.

One who is very slick and has good defense, but has absolutely no punching power. Most of all his fight go to the cards because he is too slick to get KO'd, but at the same time, doesnt have enough firepower to put his opponent away or One who has a poor defense, but great offense, and every punch he throws has KO written all over it. His fights rarely ever go to the scorecards, because there is a good chance that either he gets KO'd do to his lack of defense, or he KO's his opponent due to his great offense and punching power. It think it dedends on who their fighting I like to see good power however I dont like really early ko's. I find boxers like floyd mayweather jr good as well however on the whole I'd say I prefer slugfests.

One who is very slick and has good defense, but has absolutely no punching power. Most of all his fight go to the cards because he is too slick to get KO'd, but at the same time, doesnt have enough firepower to put his opponent away or One who has a poor defense, but great offense, and every punch he throws has KO written all over it. His fights rarely ever go to the scorecards, because there is a good chance that either he gets KO'd do to his lack of defense, or he KO's his opponent due to his great offense and punching power. the 2nd option

i'm starting to think he made this thread to take shots at floyd, which would only be fitting for him, seeing this is what he's been doing for a while anyway, but nonetheless, to answer your stupid little question, i look at boxing as an artform, so whether your art is slick with great movement and amazing defense, but not a lot of power, or you're a brawling type of fighter who takes punches to land punches, then i'm a fan of both as long as give a full effort. mayweather has shown that he can do both very well, but seems to have only a couple of his fights talked about on this forum, so it really doesn't matter, does it? See how sensitive Floydboyz get? No wonder you guys are constantly known as "the most sensitive fans on bscene". For the record, my question had NOTHING to do with Floyd. I was just curious to see which type of fighters my fellow posters prefer to watch. Ok, Floyd defender? There are a handfull of fighters that fit both profiles that i described.

Has there ever been a technical/safety-first type of fight that has ever been recognized as FOTY? Seems to me that the only fights that have been recognized as FOTY, are usually ones that consist of brawling, knockdowns, and KO's.

i'm starting to think he made this thread to take shots at floyd, which would only be fitting for him, seeing this is what he's been doing for a while anyway, but nonetheless, to answer your stupid little question, i look at boxing as an artform, so whether your art is slick with great movement and amazing defense, but not a lot of power, or you're a brawling type of fighter who takes punches to land punches, then i'm a fan of both as long as give a full effort. mayweather has shown that he can do both very well, but seems to have only a couple of his fights talked about on this forum, so it really doesn't matter, does it? He did. Deevel has an issue, dear. A serious problem. Him and $in. (?) Anyway, I prefer technical skill. It can encompass precise, controlled aggression resulting in KO's. I don't have a predilection toward KO so I don't care if a fighter is all punching power. They tend to get their ass beat a lot, too.

Any real boxing fan wants to see fighters that deliver knockouts. umm i disagree..any "real" boxing fan...enjoys the fight...the techniques involved...and just overall perfection by both fighters...kayo's are a plus...but not what real boxing fans are looken 4....u want sloppy quick knockouts watch the UFC

I favor the technical skilled boxers over the non-skilled brawlers. But I like both willing to watch both and highly respect both styles.

Any real boxing fan wants to see fighters that deliver knockouts. I AGREE. TECHNICAL FIGHTERS ARE FUN TO WATCH ALSO AS I AM A BIG FAN OF BOTH STYLES, BUT I'D RATHER SEE A COTTO TYPE FIGHTER, TAKE SOME PUNISHMENT TO DELIVER SOME IN RETURN. THAT'S WHY I'M A BIG JULIO CESAR CHAVEZ SR FAN, HE'D TAKE 3 TO LAND 1, AND STILL WIN BY KNOCKOUT.:usa:

I'm a fan of both Mayweather and Haye. So both for me.

Its kind of like the last Rocky Movie for me. My favorite fighters are usually fighters who have been tested (got caught with a good punch but fought valiantly on) or have faced adversity (been cut, hurt hand, eye closing....etc and still fought on). When fighters win too easily it is not as exciting. Vulnerability and a flawed hero make me more of a fan as I can relate to them better. I loved Corrales, Gatti, Arce, Chavez, Morales (some reason Barrera never resonated with me like Morales), Marquez, Vazquez, Cotto, Augustus, Quartey, Kevin Kelley, JMM, Cotto, Mosley, Pavlik, Tito, Evander, Bowe.....even Paulie Malignagi won me over slightly when he showed grit and heart in finishing the Cotto fight. I'm a fan of the near flawless fighters....RJJ, PBF, Lenox and have respect for there ability but I never became as big a fan of there's as I was for the slightly less regarded, imperfect fighters.

slick technicians like Mayweather

Did you find the DLH fight more exciting than the Hatton fight? Ok, why don't you just get on with it and say that you don't like Floyd. This thread is really ridiculous. You're beating a dead horse. Joe Calzaghe doesn't score a lot of knockouts, do you find him exciting? Was the Manfredo fight the defining moment of his career?

I usually enjoy watching a fighter who is willing to take a punch to get his in, and likes to go for knockout. But that doesn't mean that his defense must be poor. someone who doesnt start fighting cautiosly when he gets hit a few times and is willing to trade.