Whats more important, fighting to win or fighting to entertain?

If you're being guaranteed thirty million plus, are in total control of a fight where the opponent is completely outmatched and already mentally beat, it wouldn't hurt to make an effort to actually try a close the show, as opposed to keeping it safe in the most conservative manner possible. Guess who? If they're already mentally beat you've done your job and handled your business. Why give that guy a shot to land a well timed punch to possibly put your health and already secured win on the line?

You literally can't please everyone. So suit your style for a specific type of crowd, pick the method that you're best at for winning and it people take notice and appreciate you they're be entertained anyway.

If you're being guaranteed thirty million plus, are in total control of a fight where the opponent is completely outmatched and already mentally beat, it wouldn't hurt to make an effort to actually try a close the show, as opposed to keeping it safe in the most conservative manner possible. Guess who?

Winning and it's not even close..

The two elements are about equal in value, but that's really beside the point anyway. The bottom line is, you have to be successful in both areas to succeed in the sport of boxing. If you can't win, you can't get exposure. If you can't entertain, you can't maintain exposure. One without the other is useless. That's why Guillermo Rigondeaux, an undefeated title holder, is on his way to obscurity. There are lot of winning chess players in the world, no one wants to watch them though, and it will be a cold day in hell before any of them headline a PPV event. LOL.

Here you go classic!!!...:lol1:

from the fighters' POV, they wanna win from the fans' POV, they wanna be entertained you want the best man to win, but if the fight sucks, you're unhappy smart fighters know it's best to both win and entertain the crowd fighting to win AND fighting to entertain make a great fighter....and more marketable fighter.... one without the other is useless.......

from the fighters' POV, they wanna win from the fans' POV, they wanna be entertained you want the best man to win, but if the fight sucks, you're unhappy smart fighters know it's best to both win and entertain the crowd

People kill me with this bs. We know for a fact its more important to win then to be entertaining. If winning is secondary then you shouldn't be in any sport at all. This can go for any sport out there.

Let's look at the mindsets of the boxers in 3 fights: Pac-JMM 4, Bradley-the Russian, Alvardo-Rios. Bradley & Alvarado met the challenge early on and we had an entertaining fight. Then both figured they could not win that way so they shifted to tap and run. Killed the fight...but they won. Would all boxers make this same decision? NO!!!! What if either of these 2 had prevailed without running? They would have been instant stars. But because of the option they chose, THIS fan would not tune into their fights anymore. Why? Because I know when the heat is on, they're on the after burners! Pacquiao got put down by Marquez early on...but yet he kept charging in. Was it stupidity or a deliberate decision that he wanted to finish the guy? The latter, but he was wrong. So what? How many fans did he lose? Some boxers don't dread losing. They dread the play safe approach more!

But isn't it the guy who is losing who needs to go for the kill? If this were football you'd expect the team thats up to run the clock out and the team thats losing to try for big plays to catch up. If the ahead started passing they'd be called stupid and be accused of bad sportsmanship. i dont know much about football so i wouldnt know.... but its prizefighting, and the ultimate end result is a KO. thats what makes prize-fighting unique. the expectation/hope for a KO is the selling point. even floyd uses KOs as a selling point even though we all KNOW the chance of it are slim. but his tough-talk sells tickets. hence "closing the show" is applauded. im sure if team sports had a way of ending a game early, it would happen.

you can still entertain and win.... if the boxer is CLEARLY dominating, why not go for the kill? why carry the guy to a decision? having fans pay for admission then walk out after the 10th is NOT a good look. But isn't it the guy who is losing who needs to go for the kill? If this were football you'd expect the team thats up to run the clock out and the team thats losing to try for big plays to catch up. If the ahead started passing they'd be called stupid and be accused of bad sportsmanship.

Froch's got a big mouth but I would tune in to all his fights. He fights with pride and is out to get you. Ward is near impossible to beat...but I tune out. Winning with defense is not crowd pleasing. Don't speak for the whole crowd. If I was in that crowd I would be enjoying them equally, I love a war, but I drool over defensive prowess as well.

If you fight to win, the entertainment follows naturally. If you fight just to survive, a boring fight is most likely to follow. If you fight to win it means your aim is to KO the opponent. Bottom line really is you can fight in whatever style you want. I doubt anyone can stop you. BUT don't complain if you're not making a lot of money because of your boring style. All you'll have are streamers.

What a dumb pole... The answer is obvious, but you know there are a few people who are going to be forced to say entertaining because they spend so much time on here discrediting great boxers for being boring. And the question is, what's more important FIGHTING to win, or FIGHTING to entertain? That means, if you are FIGHTING, what's more important, winning or entertaining? You are a damn fool if you'd rather entertain than win a fight. you can still entertain and win.... if the boxer is CLEARLY dominating, why not go for the kill? why carry the guy to a decision? having fans pay for admission then walk out after the 10th is NOT a good look.

winning secures your next payday.... but entertaining fans secures a BIGGER payday & following. so ask yourself which holds more value for a boxer? basing your marketability off of winning? or basing off of fan loyalty? dead horse, but floyd/pac seems to be the best example. naturally, we love winners, and floyd made millions doing it.... but i feel the most INTRIGUING situation is to see how pac/rios does. even after 2 losses (1 by career-ending KO), can pac still draw big numbers? if he can STILL draw close to 1 mil in PPV, then it would be safe to say that entertaining fans holds REAL value, especially long-term. if it busts, then it proves the latter. oscar was the perfect example of, win or lose, he draws big money. i feel like that is the best approach career-wise.

winning is a must, but you should try to take some risks to raise your stock, dont fight only to score points, run and then cry that no one cares for you i guess the next best thing is saying alot of stupid sht

You're not trying to lose by being entertaining! You don't try to win by being boring. There's a greater risk of losing by being entertaining but certain boxers, like Pacquiao, accept this risk. Manny didn't lose because he was trying to entertain fans, he lost because he was over aggressive in pursuit of a KO victory and he got himself out of position and had his hands down. That's not risking losing for the sake of entertainment thats misjudging the damage your opponent has suffered and making a huge defnsive mistake. as a result of the mistake-we got an entertaining and dramatic ending. I don't think any fighter puts entertaining over winning.

You're not trying to lose by being entertaining! Ain't that what Timothy Bradley almost did in his last fight?

Winning is obviously more important. A mixture of both is the perfect scenario. Doesn't every fighter fight to win? Some go about it in a more entertaining style but every fighter comes to win first and foremost.