Winning Not Enough?

[cortdawg25]

Winning isn't enough when you hate the fighter that won. That's all there is to it...

If you're a football or basketball fan, you can't really blame anything if your favorite team loses a close game because you can see one team scored more points than the other...

In pro boxing, there's no point scoring. It's all subjective. So anyone can say a fighter won/lost and there's really no right or wrong in a close fight. So a fighter can win a fight, but people can still say the fighter lost or should have lost because the scoring is subjective...

well why is the scoring so subjective? Shouldn't there be a detailed outline of rules to scoring. I mean this is an professional sport that has been around for many years, why hasn't their been a format to follow and to judge fights fairly on certain distinct criteria.

[me2007]

because boxing is supposed to be entertaining. I`ve never met anyone who found Mayweather entertaining.

I also dont take the point othes have made about the so called 'sweet science'. Mayweather dpes one half of that, in that he doesn`t get tagged very often. But he doesn`t fire back with nearly anough ferocity or power to make up for this.

Boreweather sums up why people have started to watch MMA instead.

[Guest]

well why is the scoring so subjective? Shouldn't there be a detailed outline of rules to scoring. I mean this is an professional sport that has been around for many years, why hasn't their been a format to follow and to judge fights fairly on certain distinct criteria.

There are guidelines, but some people weigh certain ones more than others. Some people will give fighters credit for aggression even if it's ineffective. They will give fighters credit for throwing more punches even if most miss or they don't land as cleanly as his opponent's punches. It's all subject to interpretation. Boxing would be a joke if it was based on who landed the most punches. The only way there would be clear winners is if a fight had to end by KO and the rounds were unlimited...

[ROSEWOOD]

In boxing, if your fighter is winning then you are satisfied..If you hate a fighter then "he ain't fighting anyone"..

Winning is all that matters in any sport..When its all said and done, E. Augustus will not go to the HOF because he is one of the most entertaining fighters today..He wont go because he has 30+ loses....

[titoi]

Why in boxing is winning not enough? In other sports, all the fans care about is the W... My point is why in boxing a prize fighter winning is almost like losing if he doesn't win like the masses want him to win....

Interesting topic and some interesting replies.

Everything depends on perspective, so let's look at this from a few.

From the perspective of a sportsman/athlete, winning matters, but it is hardly the most important thing. We don't push our kids to go into sports so they win (though we certainly hope they do), but so that they develop good characters, healthy bodies and the experiences of the discipline of training and the joys of victory and the trials of defeat and the self understanding that comes with those things.

From the perspective of a business, the money matters. If you generate more money by winning or losing then you aim to do so. Real simple. One could argue that the result we saw in Mayweather-Delahoya was optimized for profit. They now have set the stage nicely for a profitable rematch. The truly cynical could even say that now the fighters can be even choosier (!) about who they fight given that they've achieved "superfight" status as Floyd now seems to be saying.

From the perspective of fans, it will vary (e.g., some people insist on a blood & guts battle while others are very happy with tactical duels and some are content with a good & fair contest). But fundamentally, what we look for in any sporting event is evidence that the athletes have uplifted themselves (and thus the audience) in some fashion and ennobled themselves through the effort. Thus, the defeat that Ali faced at the hands of Frazier or those Robinson faced against Lamotta or Fullmer didn't weaken their legends but made them the greater for the heroism with which they faced defeat and the will they showed in overcoming it.

Winning matters. But sports, boxing (and life) are not just about something so trivial and binary as a win-loss record.

[cortdawg25]

Interesting topic and some interesting replies.

Everything depends on perspective, so let's look at this from a few.

From the perspective of a sportsman/athlete, winning matters, but it is hardly the most important thing. We don't push our kids to go into sports so they win (though we certainly hope they do), but so that they develop good characters, healthy bodies and the experiences of the discipline of training and the joys of victory and the trials of defeat and the self understanding that comes with those things.

From the perspective of a business, the money matters. If you generate more money by winning or losing then you aim to do so. Real simple. One could argue that the result we saw in Mayweather-Delahoya was optimized for profit. They now have set the stage nicely for a profitable rematch. The truly cynical could even say that now the fighters can be even choosier (!) about who they fight given that they've achieved "superfight" status as Floyd now seems to be saying.

From the perspective of fans, it will vary (e.g., some people insist on a blood & guts battle while others are very happy with tactical duels and some are content with a good & fair contest). But fundamentally, what we look for in any sporting event is evidence that the athletes have uplifted themselves (and thus the audience) in some fashion and ennobled themselves through the effort. Thus, the defeat that Ali faced at the hands of Frazier or those Robinson faced against Lamotta or Fullmer didn't weaken their legends but made them the greater for the heroism with which they faced defeat and the will they showed in overcoming it.

Winning matters. But sports, boxing (and life) are not just about something so trivial and binary as a win-loss record.

But it should be just win and losses in sports. Sports do not equate to life. Ones greatness shouldn't be measured by his ability to come back after losing. the words great and losing to me are contradictory. I believe we as people are uncomfortable with the reality of perfect. There is no way of really explaining why one must lose in order to be great. That makes no sense. I don't have children but I've played sports my whole life and not once did I do two a days or run laps and practice hard to lose. And I definitely never felt like losing made me greater. Now I did learn something from losing but none of those lessons made me feel great, but they did make me fel strong. I just don't understand how losing can make your legend greater.

[Kball15]

You make a good point.

Fans watch boxing for excitement nowadays.

But the superstars have very loyal fanbases and it definetly matters if they win or not.

Its not like the 30's anymore though, when there would riots or celebrations in the streets depending on who the big fight

[Easy-E]

Why in boxing is winning not enough? In other sports, all the fans care about is the W. They don't care if it was a dominating performance or if it was blowout or a close game. All that matters is that they can cheer and praise their team for getting the W for them. The Patriots are considered a dynasty for their Superbowl wins in the last 5 or 6 years. In every one of their wins in the Superbowl, they have won by a field goal. The St.Louis Rams, Carolina Panthers, and the Philadelphia Eagles all were defeated by a field goal. The San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons are considered great teams for every single year they are in contention and winning the championships. Rarely, do they sweep other teams to make it to the finals and they are never criticized but cheered. The Yankees win often and always are in contention. They do face some criticism, more than most teams in the MLB, but no one is complaining when they are winning. My point is why in boxing a prize fighter winning is almost like losing if he doesn't win like the masses want him to win....

Winning is enough. Always.
Anyone who thinks other wise is an idiot.

[cortdawg25]

There are guidelines, but some people weigh certain ones more than others. Some people will give fighters credit for aggression even if it's ineffective. They will give fighters credit for throwing more punches even if most miss or they don't land as cleanly as his opponent's punches. It's all subject to interpretation. Boxing would be a joke if it was based on who landed the most punches. The only way there would be clear winners is if a fight had to end by KO and the rounds were unlimited...

But they aren't distinct guidelines. Like you said some give credit for effective aggression when it is not effective. There should be certain format laid out for effective aggression, certain criteria for clean punching and ring generalship as well as defense. basically, what I'm saying is that there should be little room for interpretation.

[titoi]

>sigh<