What do you think of the theory....

Put in a fight like Gatti-Ward 1 and casual fans and experts love to see that but it's rare. Boxing I think had its fare share of growth and success and doesn't need to prove anyone wrong about whether their fights are exciting or not. IMO boxing will always be remebered for both the technical and dramatic styles. The problem is these days even the technical or defensive if you like to refer to is different from the past. Now it is more of just running away with the win. Before it was trying to get the win while trying to make it exciting and respectively earning the win. Don't get me wrong, there are still technical boxers that can still put on a show but I don't think they are the same as in the 80' or 90'

I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed. For example, taking risks is a virtue by all means, yet is sorely lacking in your average technical fight. In fact, in some fights involving the most technical fihgters there is absolutely no risk involved. This is a big no-no in a sport that seeks mainstream acceptance. The "greater risk, greater glory" adage is applicable to all sports and that is why Michael Jordan propelled not only himself but his sport to greater heights. Instead of going for the easy deuce via jump shot he drives through three defenders for a spectacular dunk. Or instead of driving to the basket for a tie he goes for a risk-filled three point shot. Conversely, the reason why tennis got boring in the Sampras era was because Sampras predictably beat all his opponents with his power serves. Put Agassi in his place and the sport would've flourished, as Tiger did with golf. Moreover, there is less drama in a highly technical fight, and this is what the sport needs to get more fans. I mean, boxing should be the most dramatic sport in the world because it features two men out to unleash their most primal instincts on each other and yet, a sport where men bounce balls like idiots with the aim of shooting it in a basket without the least bit of physical contact excites the casual sports fan even more than the premier fight sport. There is something terribly wrong about this, sorry to rant. every body loves to see a brawl, but experts appreciate technique over just blood-n-guts.

Great post ChiTown, your on a roll today!

I always prefer a brawl as long as their is skill involved over a hopkins or cory spinkss type fight

Some good posts from you today. I would like to see more posts like this rather than the usual bickering over records and results. Basically I think that the casual fan appreciates good competitive fights, with the ideal being between a boxer and a brawler, with the template defining fight being The Rumble in The Jungle. The casual fan IMO has no time for real chess matches, or boring fights, its a huge part of why HW has become so much less popular. People just don't want to see two sacks of sand leaning on each other. It's also why the amazing Floyd Mayweather is nowhere near the mainstream hero he could be. Too technical. Even hardcore fans don't like snoozefests, but no doubt can appreciate tactical boxing between two well matched opponents. So basically, I think the stereotype is true! ________ Buy Easy Vape Vaporizer