Which type of fighter are u more of a fan of?

[deevel79]

One who is very slick and has good defense, but has absolutely no punching power. Most of all his fight go to the cards because he is too slick to get KO'd, but at the same time, doesnt have enough firepower to put his opponent away

or

One who has a poor defense, but great offense, and every punch he throws has KO written all over it. His fights rarely ever go to the scorecards, because there is a good chance that either he gets KO'd do to his lack of defense, or he KO's his opponent due to his great offense and punching power.

[boxingsmash69]

uhhh. i like john ruiz's style

[Guest]

Any real boxing fan wants to see fighters that deliver knockouts.

[moofo]

I prefer a fighter to turn up and trade punches.
I absolutely detest negative fighters who run round the ring with a punch output close to 10 a round.
Fighters who come to fight and put on a show and give it their all get my vote every time.
For example Borehard Hopkins Vs Howard Eastman and Danny Williams V Audley Harrison 1 are the worst kind of fights.
Oh and Johnny "The Entertainer" Nelson.
Any fight involving that guy was like taking a full bottle of sleeping tablets.
Borehard & Johnny had the most ridiculous monikers ever as they were neither ever what their Nicknames promised.

[deevel79]

Any real boxing fan wants to see fighters that deliver knockouts.

I agree. But then u have fans who claim they watch boxing because its a "beautifull artform" I hear the word fight, and i automatically think of violence. I'd rather watch a guy who wouldnt mind taking 1 or 2 on the chin in order to deliver his.

[BmoreBrawler]

I like the fighters that pretend like theyre in a real fight, not the ones that test the rules of boxing to their very limit and show no aggression.

[Xyei]

One who is very slick and has good defense, but has absolutely no punching power. Most of all his fight go to the cards because he is too slick to get KO'd, but at the same time, doesnt have enough firepower to put his opponent away

or

One who has a poor defense, but great offense, and every punch he throws has KO written all over it. His fights rarely ever go to the scorecards, because there is a good chance that either he gets KO'd do to his lack of defense, or he KO's his opponent due to his great offense and punching power.

Neither. I like technical fighters but I don't really like guys like Paulie Malignagi, who are really slick boxers but never really hurt opponents. I also don't really like fighters who have **** defense and go in throwing wild haymakers that don't land. I guess somewhere in between for me.

[Guest]

I agree. But then u have fans who claim they watch boxing because its a "beautifull artform" I hear the word fight, and i automatically think of violence. I'd rather watch a guy who wouldnt mind taking 1 or 2 on the chin in order to deliver his.

Like I said, REAL BOXING FANS. You are talking about ignorant nuthuggers who don't know what boxing is really about. You think MMA would have come close to the popularity it's at now if all the fighters ran like cowards and fought on the mat all the time? People watch MMA for the knockouts because we're not getting enough of them at the elite level in boxing.

[-EX-]

The first option. 2 fighters with skill can still put on an entertaining fight. Mayweather-Judah was a good fight between 2 skilled fighters that ended with no KO. Cotto-Mosley as well.

Every now and then I would like to see a KO though. Whatever you do best you should do.

[Guest]

The first option. 2 fighters with skill can still put on an entertaining fight. Mayweather-Judah was a good fight between 2 skilled fighters that ended with no KO. Cotto-Mosley as well.

Every now and then I would like to see a KO though. Whatever you do best you should do.

So you don't think Mayweather's win over Hatton was all that great since he knocked him out, right? You were more impressed by his win over Baldomir, right?