Boxing raises its stock everytime a fight...

I don't think anyone is going to say that two guys who go out there and dish it out isn't going to be seen favorably by boxing fans. Personally, I loved the DeGale-Jack fight, thought it was a wonderfully entertaining fight, and hopefully sets the bar for the coming year on in ring action. Sports fans like to see action, weather it's a nice catch in football, a big goal in soccer, a home run in baseball a slam dunk in basketball, or two men standing toe to toe and beating the crap out of one another while we cheer them on. It's what sports are built off. Now, that doesn't mean that exceptionally talented men can't use rules, strategy, or tactics to their advantage and it instantly becomes boring. Quite the opposite in many cases. But at it's base, unless you're walking into a fight with a mindset and appreciation for seeing that - I think most casual boxing fans just want to see fireworks. Ofc tthey want,and sports are build of casuals,Ali wouldnt be so Fameous if he would fight like Ward,(i know Ali hold quite a lot,as all HWs but his fights was very exciting and dramatic),you will say Floyd but one thing is Floyd had many known opponets(Cotto,Canelo,Pac,JMM,Mosley,Oscar,Hatton) nobody have this many options now,just look how GBP is looking for big names for Canelo,its Chavez then GGG and what next?just bunch of no names.Floyd will never reach Ali or Tyson status anyway,thats why boxing need action.

I don't think anyone is going to say that two guys who go out there and dish it out isn't going to be seen favorably by boxing fans. Personally, I loved the DeGale-Jack fight, thought it was a wonderfully entertaining fight, and hopefully sets the bar for the coming year on in ring action. Sports fans like to see action, weather it's a nice catch in football, a big goal in soccer, a home run in baseball a slam dunk in basketball, or two men standing toe to toe and beating the crap out of one another while we cheer them on. It's what sports are built off. Now, that doesn't mean that exceptionally talented men can't use rules, strategy, or tactics to their advantage and it instantly becomes boring. Quite the opposite in many cases. But at it's base, unless you're walking into a fight with a mindset and appreciation for seeing that - I think most casual boxing fans just want to see fireworks.

does not involve a "jab and grabber". Everytime there's a jab and grabber/clincher/wrestler, we have a negative result. Each time we have two fighters going for action, win or lose, we have positive results for the sport, even if the judges scorecards are off. The sport wins. Why is this basic fact so hard to understand to some people? The DeGale - Jack fight even with a debatable result left a positive result for the sport, people got to see action, two KD's, their money worth, and looking for another fight of both. Damn, this makes me not want to watch Klit's next fight.

When he says no Graber he dont mean that there is 0 clinches in a fight LMAO ,this would be impossible. I know. Maxi is over exaggerating the factor holding was in fights the guy(s) he likes lost. He doesn't like it when Ward or Floyd holds and they win. However, these fights were not boring. Maxi has to learn that "excitement", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Maxi, all fighters, regardless of style preference, hold during a fight. JUst because the guy you like loses desn't mean you should over exaggerate like this. When he says no Graber he dont mean that there is 0 clinches in a fight LMAO ,this would be impossible.

Jack-Degale was more exciting. Any fight in which there's no jab and grabber tends to be exciting. Except some fights, like I said Crawford postol was kinda boring. I love Rigo, fan of his, but I can't deny that some of his fights are very boring. Same for Lara. But 99% of the fights, if there's no grabber, we are ok. Maxi, all fighters, regardless of style preference, hold during a fight. JUst because the guy you like loses desn't mean you should over exaggerate like this.

Those fights were good fights. What is your example of an exciting fight? Jack-Degale was more exciting. Any fight in which there's no jab and grabber tends to be exciting. Except some fights, like I said Crawford postol was kinda boring. I love Rigo, fan of his, but I can't deny that some of his fights are very boring. Same for Lara. But 99% of the fights, if there's no grabber, we are ok.

Do fighters fight to win or fight to entertain??

Ward Kovalev Crawford Postol Boring fights. Those fights were good fights. What is your example of an exciting fight?

Alvarez vs Lara, both in their primes, both the best at their weightclass. Entertainment Value: Zero Ward Kovalev Crawford Postol Boring fights.

Also Wladimir Klitschko Vs Povetkin. Both at the top of their weightclass. WK #1 Povetkin around #2 or #3 if I remember right. Entertainment value: - 10 Reason: Klitschkos jab jab grab, jab grab, grabbing as soon as povetkin remotely is remotely near his punching range, grabbing and putting weight on povetkin. nah that was a great fight. ward and floyd studied it and both said it was the best performance in boxing history

Also Wladimir Klitschko Vs Povetkin. Both at the top of their weightclass. WK #1 Povetkin around #2 or #3 if I remember right. Entertainment value: - 10 Reason: Klitschkos jab jab grab, jab grab, grabbing as soon as povetkin remotely is remotely near his punching range, grabbing and putting weight on povetkin.

Alvarez vs Lara, both in their primes, both the best at their weightclass. Entertainment Value: Zero that fight was at caneloweight of 155. at 154 lara stops canelo.

Andre Ward....jab n grab. He's a more skilled version of John "punch n grab' Ruiz. i would say less skilled. ruiz beat holyfield. ward beat froch. advantage ruiz.

Boxing raises its stock every time the best fight the best when both are at or near their primes. Alvarez vs Lara, both in their primes, both the best at their weightclass. Entertainment Value: Zero

nah it benefits when losing is rewarded. thats why eric crumble is a ppv star No, losing is. Too many guys get title shots and high profile TV fights despite losing. It is really unfair and its a far cry from how the sport used to be. ALl promoters are guilty of this. Frankly, instead of Manny, Loma, Broner, etc getting shots after losing fights and shots they didn't necessarily earn, wouldn't it be better if the guys that had won 10 or 12 fights against progressively better comp get those opportunities?

Those fighters are exploited by the networks and the fans. The networks love them because they provide exciting action fights on the cheap. Since they aren't elite, they don't have high purse demands. Since they rack up L's, and are out of title contention at this stage in their career, they have to sacrifice themselves for TV dates and paydays. These opportunities should go to more deserving men that keep winning. Even in old school boxing video games, you got better fights after winning. IMO rewarding guys that are only there to bleed and lose by KO hurts the sport. It gives the false sense that KO wins mean more when they do not. Meanwhile, a guy that wins a tough UD against a top tier opponent somehow has to take a back seat and not get opportunities. we should match fighters evenly as you suggested and then reward the winner. We shouldn't keep recycling the same losers and bleeders just so a few clowns on NSB can get their rocks off.

Hard to argue with that. Jab and grab suppresses real skill in the pocket, which is where all the best live and die.

Boxing raises its stock every time the best fight the best when both are at or near their primes. you always find subtle ways to bash floyd i love it

Boxing raises its stock every time the best fight the best when both are at or near their primes. yup so true