Boxer or Brawler

Whatever the type Juan Manuel Marquez is.

Pressure fighters Antonio Margarito

'Brawling' takes skill too, you know. In fact, its in many cases more difficult to keep good defense going foward than going backwards. I always laugh at people that think that 'hit and dont get hit' means 'fight defensively'. Youre missing the 'hit' part. also, most of the best fighters of all time are actually offensive fighters. Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Louis, Langford, etc. when it gets down to it, the winner is the one who does more damage. Defense is still an integral part of boxing without a shadow of a doubt, but I dislike how people think that fighters that come forward have 'less skill' when reality its actually the opposite.

no lover for swarmers and sluggers? I would but them in that category. For example, what would you call Ray Mancini?

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.

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

A combination of both A guy like Cotto or Barrera is my favorite.

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.

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.

wouldnt call them brawlers I said two greats brawling not two great brawlers.

give me the Boxer! especially Boxers that can do a little bit of both, Box and Brawl a little

Same here but was watching Barrera/Morales this morning and decided you can't beat two great's brawling, going at it until the final bell. Well, they're both very skilled also. They can just brawl like warriors too.

Boxer The sport is called boxing not brawling. That's why. That's what make you a real boxing fan casual fans thinking two boxers boxing each other is boring.

Same here but was watching Barrera/Morales this morning and decided you can't beat two great's brawling, going at it until the final bell. wouldnt call them brawlers

brawlers are exciting the short time they last..boxers define the sweet science but brawlers usually bring the best or worse out of them

I prefer defensive fighters, or 'slick' fighters. Mayweather, Whitaker, Benton, Qawi, Benitez, Locche, Toney etc. Or just generally skillful fighters. They don't have to be 'defensive' or 'slick' for me to like them. Of course I love a good scrap too. But that's my preferance. Same here but was watching Barrera/Morales this morning and decided you can't beat two great's brawling, going at it until the final bell.

There is such a thing as a boxer/puncher. Its not just black and white.

I prefer defensive fighters, or 'slick' fighters. Mayweather, Whitaker, Benton, Qawi, Benitez, Locche, Toney etc. Or just generally skillful fighters. They don't have to be 'defensive' or 'slick' for me to like them. For example Arguello and Monzon are probably my favourite fighters, who obviously aren't 'slick' but are tremendously skilled. Of course I love a good scrap too. But that's my preferance.