One and not the other.......

Its like when you are a kid and first time you go to a boxing gym with your friend. You go there cause you want to fight, punch other people who punch you back to see who is better. You dont go there cause you want to learn how to dance around, dodge ten punches and counter with a jab.. Thats stuff that you might learn to appreciate later. Precisely, defensive abilities are supposed to aid you when executing your offense, not the other way around.

Its like when you are a kid and first time you go to a boxing gym with your friend. You go there cause you want to fight, punch other people who punch you back to see who is better. You dont go there cause you want to learn how to dance around, dodge ten punches and counter with a jab.. Thats stuff that you might learn to appreciate later.

The sport is originally called prize fighting, the essence of the sport is two men meeting in a ring to fight. A fight involves the risk of someone getting hurt, this creates excitement. Even safety first fighters like floyd or rigo when they talk about upcoming fights they say "im gonna hurt this guy" or "im gonna knock him out" they dont say, im gonna circle around and jab him, he wont get hurt but he will be so annoyed". There dosent have to be a KO or someone getting hurt but if you take away that element either by two fighters content with taking points and unwilling to take risks or by having olympic style pillow gloves then it's no longer a fight. If it's no danger involved then there can be no warriors or bravery and we could as well watch a tennis match or a regular chessmatch instead of a "boxing chessmatch". I admire technical skill and it is great to watch as long as the technique aint used only to avoid fighting at all costs...

If the rounds were close, it means that depending on how you score rounds it could go either way, especially with rounds with low activity from both fighters. I am sorry if you have use an amateur system when judging rounds, and that you can't understand that the aggressor is often given a round when there is very low activity from both, and only one is throwing significant punches(you don't score body shots?). I can't speak on Richard April, I haven't seen any of his fights(only heard about his fight with Rios), and I don't like to talk about stuff I don't know. I can speak on Lara however, I have seen many of his fights, and he moved excessively in the Canelo fight, in one specific round I remember him moving then stopping, move again then stop again, and again without throwing a single punch. That is called fighting negative, if you are nullifying your own offense how effective are you really? Even then, I could see the fight going towards Lara, the fact that you can't do the same means you favor a specific style of fighting. I am not entirely sure by what you mean by "crap fighters", but if you know boxing you should know that many a times highly skilled fighters have been beaten by average skilled fighters, it's not all about skills, because it's is a fight there are other intangibles such as heart, strength and relentlessness. To quote Cus D'Amato, "When two men are fighting, what makes you’re watching is more a contest of wills than of skills, with the stronger will usually overcoming skill'. Also I never implied that skilled fighter should brawl, but if he is truly skilled then he also knows how to deliver a smart offensive assault. I fully understand how to score a fight. I wasn't speaking in general I was speaking about this fight. You suggest I favour Lara's style, well I'll tell you now that Canelo's style/punching technique and those like it (Diego Chavez and Carl Frampton to a degree) is my favourite style. You say that an aggressor is usually given a close round and that is true but it's also a flaw in boxing that I don't conform to. Like I said, Lara wanted to move and Canelo couldn't stop him, so Lara was controlling where the fight took place and when punches were exchanged i.e ring generalship. He landed the clean and harder blows to the head. Canelo's body punching certainly won him a round or two but he was disappointing to say the least. Angulo made Lara stop and fight him by cutting the ring and catching Lara when he tried to spin away to his right which made cutting the ring easier. Canelo's right hand was no where to be seen. Imagine the myth of Willie Pep was true and he once won a round without throwing a punch, a boxing myth many would be in awe of if they witnessed. You would be sitting there complaning "why's Pep being so negative".

Close rounds doesn't mean a close fight. I can barely win every round but I still win 12-0. I'm not saying that was the case with Lara/Canelo but it was a clear win for Lara with competitive rounds, I can't see a case for Alvarez winning at all though. What's you're opinion on a guy like Richard Abril? Doesn't hit hard at all, but stands in the pocket and makes guys miss, technically brilliant and lands beautiful punches, moves when necessary but no more. When I see a guy like Lara "running " as some say it's just his crappy version of Ali or Pep's movement, because it's not as effective he must move more but he's not running. Take Lomachenko for example, probably uses more laterally movement than any other fighter, but it all serves a purpose just out of reach of his opponent to create angles and give him an advantage. Me, I find Devon Alexander boring, why? He doesn't know how to punch, he shouldn't have been a world champion. I despise crap fighters(not level but fighters whose style is just illogical) and hate when I see a guy with ability choosing to try to just slug it out. If the rounds were close, it means that depending on how you score rounds it could go either way, especially with rounds with low activity from both fighters. I am sorry if you have use an amateur system when judging rounds, and that you can't understand that the aggressor is often given a round when there is very low activity from both, and only one is throwing significant punches(you don't score body shots?). I can't speak on Richard April, I haven't seen any of his fights(only heard about his fight with Rios), and I don't like to talk about stuff I don't know. I can speak on Lara however, I have seen many of his fights, and he moved excessively in the Canelo fight, in one specific round I remember him moving then stopping, move again then stop again, and again without throwing a single punch. That is called fighting negative, if you are nullifying your own offense how effective are you really? Even then, I could see the fight going towards Lara, the fact that you can't do the same means you favor a specific style of fighting. I am not entirely sure by what you mean by "crap fighters", but if you know boxing you should know that many a times highly skilled fighters have been beaten by average skilled fighters, it's not all about skills, because it's is a fight there are other intangibles such as heart, strength and relentlessness. To quote Cus D'Amato, "When two men are fighting, what makes you’re watching is more a contest of wills than of skills, with the stronger will usually overcoming skill'. Also I never implied that skilled fighter should brawl, but if he is truly skilled then he also knows how to deliver a smart offensive assault.

Yep, a fighters out of the ring antics should affect my technical appreciation of a sport...... you shouldn't be calling things stupid. Wasn't what I was saying... anyway, why am I replying to an Alt? :dance:

Even if I wasn't a fan of pac, I would probably still not like floyd. Just saying... I know for sure I wouldn't. I never liked Floyd from the very beginning. His fighting style bores the hell out of me.

I didn't edit that out of my post? I added an extra sentence reiterating it. U high bro? That's what I was referring to and yes I'm smoking some pretty nice weed right about now.

It's not all about the KO, but it's supposed to be a fight, a guy who refuses to engage is offputting to me. I don't mind a "high speed chess match" as you call it what I mind is something like Rigo vs Agbenko, where Agbenko had absolutely nothing for Rigo, yet Rigo refused to make anything happen. That being said Rigo is usually ok, but that fight was an abomination. "Blatant robbery", it was a close fight man, with close rounds which are usually favored towards the aggressor. It seems like you favor a certain style, because I could definitely see the fight going either way. Close rounds doesn't mean a close fight. I can barely win every round but I still win 12-0. I'm not saying that was the case with Lara/Canelo but it was a clear win for Lara with competitive rounds, I can't see a case for Alvarez winning at all though. What's you're opinion on a guy like Richard Abril? Doesn't hit hard at all, but stands in the pocket and makes guys miss, technically brilliant and lands beautiful punches, moves when necessary but no more. When I see a guy like Lara "running " as some say it's just his crappy version of Ali or Pep's movement, because it's not as effective he must move more but he's not running. Take Lomachenko for example, probably uses more laterally movement than any other fighter, but it all serves a purpose just out of reach of his opponent to create angles and give him an advantage. Me, I find Devon Alexander boring, why? He doesn't know how to punch, he shouldn't have been a world champion. I despise crap fighters(not level but fighters whose style is just illogical) and hate when I see a guy with ability choosing to try to just slug it out.

"Why are exciting fighters who don't beat women more popular than boring fighters who beat women?" Man the fact that you need to ask this question is lol

There you go, justifying support for a man who murdered his wife and child. Yeah, it was a good idea to edit your post I didn't edit that out of my post? I added an extra sentence reiterating it. U high bro?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say Leonard or Duran didn't have skills, and you're talking nonsense if you think boxing is about scoring a KO. You don't understand, anyone trying to entertain is a fool, boxing is for keeps. I don't need a boxer to entertain me, a high speed chess match between two killers is enough to entertain me but hey I actually enjoy boxing and the craft of it. The fact you pick Lara/Canelo to talk about and it not being about how it was a blatant robbery speaks to a bias. Was Lara great? No, was Canelo? Lara had his gameplan, he had no problem landing his punches and getting away, it was Canelo who couldn't land, Angulo had no problems cutting the ring and making a great fight against Lara but Canelo couldn't. Canelo is one of my favourite fighters but I've seen him lose three time to Floyd,Lara and Trout. It's not all about the KO, but it's supposed to be a fight, a guy who refuses to engage is offputting to me. I don't mind a "high speed chess match" as you call it what I mind is something like Rigo vs Agbenko, where Agbenko had absolutely nothing for Rigo, yet Rigo refused to make anything happen. That being said Rigo is usually ok, but that fight was an abomination. "Blatant robbery", it was a close fight man, with close rounds which are usually favored towards the aggressor. It seems like you favor a certain style, because I could definitely see the fight going either way.

Of course you will judge a fighter for what he does outside the ring -- turning the blind eye is stupid. Yep, a fighters out of the ring antics should affect my technical appreciation of a sport...... you shouldn't be calling things stupid.

Basically this, it's not about not appreciating boxing skills, it's just what you decide to do with them. If you want to use them to point fight and to survive a fight with the least amount of risk, then I can't respect that. It's about using those boxing skills to work for a KO, you might not get it(some people just can't be knocked out), but about fighting every minute of the fight, I find the inverse disrespectful. I think some boxers like Lara miss the narrative, it's not about making the other guy look bad, it's about making yourself look good(referring to a statement he made after the Canelo fight). Are people here going to say SRL and Duran don't have skills because they used go for the knockout(with a few exceptions here and there of course)? I hear people defend fighters who do the bare minimum with statements suggesting that they don't have to work more because they are so skilled, well people don't have to like them for it either. Take the guy in my Avatar for example, Brilliant fighter on the front and the back foot, fought Kiko Martinez the first time mainly in the pocket and knocked him out in a hard fought 8-9 rounds. The second time he decided to move a little more a make it easier for himself dropping Martinez on route to a easy decision win. You gonna tell me he deserves less respect the second time around? Because if you are well all I can say is go **** yourself

In your examples, I can tell you that I liked Frazier way more than Ali, Duran way more than Leonard and Chavez, Sr. more than Whitaker. It's not so much a personal thing as it is style. I like aggressive fighters. However the boxers' style meshes very well with aggressive fighters. So yes, I appreciate them and there is a lot of hate, but two guys hitting each other tends to stir up emotions. And people get very emotional over sports. Always will. And while I respect both fighters, I definitely respect one more than the other in those cases. But let's face it. When a fighter acts like a complete jackass, we take notice as human beings and respect does drop. No one is completely objective. We're only human. Well I can tell you I prefer, Ali,Leonard and Whitaker but that doesn't stop me from thinking a Prime Erik Morales's footwork to get on the inside from the front foot is some of the sexiest **** in history.

Basically this, it's not about not appreciating boxing skills, it's just what you decide to do with them. If you want to use them to point fight and to survive a fight with the least amount of risk, then I can't respect that. It's about using those boxing skills to work for a KO, you might not get it(some people just can't be knocked out), but about fighting every minute of the fight, I find the inverse disrespectful. I think some boxers like Lara miss the narrative, it's not about making the other guy look bad, it's about making yourself look good(referring to a statement he made after the Canelo fight). Are people here going to say SRL and Duran don't have skills because they used go for the knockout(with a few exceptions here and there of course)? I hear people defend fighters who do the bare minimum with statements suggesting that they don't have to work more because they are so skilled, well people don't have to like them for it either. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say Leonard or Duran didn't have skills, and you're talking nonsense if you think boxing is about scoring a KO. You don't understand, anyone trying to entertain is a fool, boxing is for keeps. I don't need a boxer to entertain me, a high speed chess match between two killers is enough to entertain me but hey I actually enjoy boxing and the craft of it. The fact you pick Lara/Canelo to talk about and it not being about how it was a blatant robbery speaks to a bias. Was Lara great? No, was Canelo? Lara had his gameplan, he had no problem landing his punches and getting away, it was Canelo who couldn't land, Angulo had no problems cutting the ring and making a great fight against Lara but Canelo couldn't. Canelo is one of my favourite fighters but I've seen him lose three time to Floyd,Lara and Trout.

I like action fighters like Froch, Golovkin, Matthysse. I also respect and like skilled boxers like Rigo as long as they got power. I dont like technical, pile up points boxing or boxers with no power like malignaggi even tough i respect them as persons. Guys like Khan, Broner, stevensson and Floyd a few years back, loud mouth obnoxious persons i don't like no matter if they are great fighters or not, i dislike their personalties and want them to get put in their place. Basically this, it's not about not appreciating boxing skills, it's just what you decide to do with them. If you want to use them to point fight and to survive a fight with the least amount of risk, then I can't respect that. It's about using those boxing skills to work for a KO, you might not get it(some people just can't be knocked out), but about fighting every minute of the fight, I find the inverse disrespectful. I think some boxers like Lara miss the narrative, it's not about making the other guy look bad, it's about making yourself look good(referring to a statement he made after the Canelo fight). Are people here going to say SRL and Duran don't have skills because they used go for the knockout(with a few exceptions here and there of course)? I hear people defend fighters who do the bare minimum with statements suggesting that they don't have to work more because they are so skilled, well people don't have to like them for it either.

I like action fighters like Froch, Golovkin, Matthysse. I also respect and like skilled boxers like Rigo as long as they got power. I dont like technical, pile up points boxing or boxers with no power like malignaggi even tough i respect them as persons. Guys like Khan, Broner, stevensson and Floyd a few years back, loud mouth obnoxious persons i don't like no matter if they are great fighters or not, i dislike their personalties and want them to get put in their place.

Of course you will judge a fighter for what he does outside the ring -- turning the blind eye is stupid.

Edwin Valero is dead. That might have something to do with it. People are going to have a hard time rooting against or wishing a jail sentence upon a dead guy. There you go, justifying support for a man who murdered his wife and child. Yeah, it was a good idea to edit your post