A mix if both I would have called for blood and guts but fighters die from fights so no. I like guys with good technique.
Whats better to you?
Collapse
-
-
What would you rather be? A blood and guts warrior with glorious bloody exhausting wars and having such glorious wins throughout your career but years later having a slowed speech and other diminished motor skills, but not entirely brain damaged, just somewhat damaged, or being a boring excellent boxer your whole career having no great battles or glorious victories and being entirely normal years later? I'd say blood and guts. You?
depends how much money either wayComment
-
I'd rather be that than be a blood and guys warrior with my fans being people like youSo basically you'd wanna be a boring ass fighter with little to no fans and have people talking **** your whole life. Well at least I know if you were that kind of fighter like that piece of **** Hamed, then I, a blood and guts fighter like Barrera could beat the **** out of you and make you look ****en ******.Comment
-
Why do people associate being an aggresive fighter with having no defence or how about a boxer puncher. Duran is a good example of someone who didn't get hit as much as people might think in the lower weights when he was young. He was aggressive and had an exciting style but wasn't hit that much.
Tito was an exciting boxer puncher that dominated the WW's with excitement and KO's but he didn't have a true war until Vargas and Tito never really took punishment and many shots till he went to MW.
The thing with "Wars" is that its usually the combination of good equally matched fighters who are only separated by the amount of heart and will they have.
Look at Hatton versus slow ass urango. Hatton is a close quarter swarmer but because of the bad matchup (in Hatton's favor) he was able to box him and keep it from being a war.Comment
Comment