Do you prefer the slick/technical boxer or the aggressive/offensive fighter?

Floyd 130-135.

I like the hybrid of the two, or a technical brawler. Juan Manuel Marquez comes in to my mind. Technical, great counters and ring IQ, still had some entertaining wars and lots of activity (many thrown punches) etc in his fights. I also like watching Lomachenko. I would love to watch Rigo if he would throw more punches. When he shines, its just beautiful to watch, the sharpness, accuracy, THE MOVEMENT... But when he goes into throwing few punches in a row, you can still appreciate the technique but know that its quite boring.

It seems like most boxing fans prefer the aggressive fighter that will exchange and bang. Which do you prefer? Look the bottom line is this, regardless of style, fighters have to give the people what they want and paid for, a good ol' fashioned fight! That's the problem with boxing today, fighters don't fight anymore and that's what turns people off. Mike Tyson said it best, "boxers are scared to fight each other." And to answer your question, the boxer-puncher is my favorite style; best of both worlds, the punching power of a slugger and the fundamentals of a boxer.

I like both. It takes a lot of skill to manuever your way into range and inside and then go to work there. Someone like Roberto Duran for instance did this masterfully. Feints, slipping shots and positioning himself perfectly to come back with counters. His opponents would think they're out of range and suddenly out of no where he was right in their face. Then on the flipside I love watching a guy box off the backfoot and use lateral movement and box a guys ears off using the jab and counters. I basically am a fan of skill, if a fighter is skilled then I like it. Also versatility, big fan of a fighter that can perform well in numerous areas.

I really prefer guys who are always trying to finish. I'm not a sports fan. Never followed any teams and just generally don't get sports. I specifically like fighting/combat and it's the only athletic thing I've really done. My taste in boxing reflects that. I see guys like Floyd, Calzaghe, Ward, etc who aren't really "fighting" so much as finding creative ways to score and just find it cheesy and hard to watch. Sit there thinking "One little change in the way the scoring rules are worded, this guy would be 0-40, not 40-0". Some little semantics made their careers. I'm conflicted over fighters who are somewhere in between like Wlad who use ugly tactics but usually to set up a brutal KO. a 250 pound man leaning on his opponent until he's exhausted so then he can throw power punches=boxing gold

I like technically sound boxer/punchers.

The problem with this question is that you can be a slick/technical fighter and an offensive fighter at the same time. That's my preference, all three. But I always lean towards technical, as a boxer myself, but it's a common misconception that you can't be defensive and offensive at the same, as well as technical and offensive at the same time. Good post, I agree.

I really prefer guys who are always trying to finish. I'm not a sports fan. Never followed any teams and just generally don't get sports. I specifically like fighting/combat and it's the only athletic thing I've really done. My taste in boxing reflects that. I see guys like Floyd, Calzaghe, Ward, etc who aren't really "fighting" so much as finding creative ways to score and just find it cheesy and hard to watch. Sit there thinking "One little change in the way the scoring rules are worded, this guy would be 0-40, not 40-0". Some little semantics made their careers. I'm conflicted over fighters who are somewhere in between like Wlad who use ugly tactics but usually to set up a brutal KO.

Slick and technical. Harder to pull off IMO.

I prefer any style over a Rigo/Lara style. Which is just pot shotting and moving. Hate that.

I prefer that the boxer has both qualities because when someone is too aggressive he comes off to me as someone who doesn't really think. And someone who is too technical he comes off to me as someone who is cowardly.

The problem with this question is that you can be a slick/technical fighter and an offensive fighter at the same time. I was coming here to say something similar. :fing02: Prime example of this would be Maidana. Slick and super offensive. I just kid

Doesn't matter which type, but what I don't get is slick fighter is always pitted against a come forward fighter. Why not slick vs slick? Put them on the undercard if they're too boring to watch. Lara vs one of the Charlos needs to happen. We don't need another Zaveck fight.

Who would you call a slick/technical boxer?

it's best if you can do both. if the slick gets behind on the cards it's best if he's got a knockout punch and aggressiveness to rely on. and if the aggressor gets hurt it's best to be able to lay back and box while you clear your head think leonard - hearns. both guys would have been stopped if they didn't have an extra gear.

I prefer fighters who fight in the pocket ,like JMM and Toney watching them is pleasure ,also Slagers like Maidana not high level boxing but good tv fighters .

I like an adaptable fighter. The best are a mix of both.

Neither. I am all about technical boxer-puncher like Marquez and Linares.

It depends on the skill gap between the fighters. I'd much rather watch GGG bomb Wade out of there then watch Mayweather toy with Berto. However I thoroughly enjoyed Rigo vs Donaire.

I like the Floyd Mayweather/James Toney/Andre Ward/Roy Jones Jr/etc style, where a guy can fight right in front of you, yet use their ring IQ, reflexes, and sheer ability to make you miss by 6 inches and tattoo you for your mistake. There's different ways to be slick, just like there are different ways to be agrressive