Is inactivity in the boxing ring becoming too accepted?

[Guest]

I remember once (okay, several times) criticising Hopkins's incredibly negative performance against Howard Eastman, and getting the usual "you've never laced 'em up/not every fight can be Gatti-Ward/you don't know boxing, you obviously don't know what a feint is" knee jerk reactions.

Yet I've noticed it's becoming more and more prevelant for boxers to use the tools that allow them to do their job (which is, fundamentally, hitting their opponent) at the exclusion of that job itself.

Now, before you reply, let me make it clear: I love and appreciate the science and technique of pugilism. And I am NOT advocating that every fight should be a recreation of Manilla.

But what I am saying is that are we becoming so blindly tolerant of these skills and so educated upon technique that we're beginning to accept more and more bouts that are boxing in the purest sense without the implimentation of the "pain game"?

Let me give you some examples that have brought this to mind: last Saturday's UK bout which saw Audley Harrison win rounds by constantly moving and literally patting Danny Williams on the head. Technically, he's winning the round in terms of the sport because he's the only one landing. But they're not real punches, it's a cheat, a steal, a fraud.

Okay, go up to the "top" of the game: Hopkins and Taylor. Now, it's all very well feinting to make each other miss, waiting for the counter, etc. But after nine rounds of it, shouldn't there actually be a part where they... FIGHT?

I'm not asking for a tear-up where they're going all out and laying Hell for leather on each other. I'm asking for the intent to make genuine contact, to win a FIGHT, not a boxing match. Not necessarily to even hurt the other guy, or KO him or any of those things. Just something that says to me if you drew up a proportionate map of a boxing match, it should actually have at least 50% of it featuring two people actually hitting each other. I'm sure if you played back Hopkins-Taylor but just took all the actual punching out, you'd still have nine rounds to sit through.

Byrd-Williamson... the list goes on.

I used to love seeing Roy Jones feint for his counter... the difference was, Roy did actually used to hit off the counter, not (Hop-Taylor again) decide against it, move out of position, step back, go to throw a jab, reconsider, get in feinting position, realign his back foot....

[Verstyle]

I remember once (okay, several times) criticising Hopkins's incredibly negative performance against Howard Eastman, and getting the usual "you've never laced 'em up/not every fight can be Gatti-Ward/you don't know boxing, you obviously don't know what a feint is" knee jerk reactions.

Yet I've noticed it's becoming more and more prevelant for boxers to use the tools that allow them to do their job (which is, fundamentally, hitting their opponent) at the exclusion of that job itself.

Now, before you reply, let me make it clear: I love and appreciate the science and technique of pugilism. And I am NOT advocating that every fight should be a recreation of Manilla.

But what I am saying is that are we becoming so blindly tolerant of these skills and so educated upon technique that we're beginning to accept more and more bouts that are boxing in the purest sense without the implimentation of the "pain game"?

Let me give you some examples that have brought this to mind: last Saturday's UK bout which saw Audley Harrison win rounds by constantly moving and literally patting Danny Williams on the head. Technically, he's winning the round in terms of the sport because he's the only one landing. But they're not real punches, it's a cheat, a steal, a fraud.

Okay, go up to the "top" of the game: Hopkins and Taylor. Now, it's all very well feinting to make each other miss, waiting for the counter, etc. But after nine rounds of it, shouldn't there actually be a part where they... FIGHT?

I'm not asking for a tear-up where they're going all out and laying Hell for leather on each other. I'm asking for the intent to make genuine contact, to win a FIGHT, not a boxing match. Not necessarily to even hurt the other guy, or KO him or any of those things. Just something that says to me if you drew up a proportionate map of a boxing match, it should actually have at least 50% of it featuring two people actually hitting each other. I'm sure if you played back Hopkins-Taylor but just took all the actual punching out, you'd still have nine rounds to sit through.

Byrd-Williamson... the list goes on.

I used to love seeing Roy Jones feint for his counter... the difference was, Roy did actually used to hit off the counter, not (Hop-Taylor again) decide against it, move out of position, step back, go to throw a jab, reconsider, get in feinting position, realign his back foot....

mmmmmmmm hell yeah. whens the last time u saw some1 fight like a mike tyson in the ring?? u hardly see it cause they cant either punch or there style is totally wrong.

[Guest]

For pure punishing fights I would agree. But have you seen Ali lately or heard of the way that Ad Walgast or Suga Ray Robinson lived out the last parts of their lives.

Boxing is about punishment, I agree. But as an ex fighter I would rather have people say that I didnt fight enough rather than fight to their satisfaction and suffer the reprecutions later on in life.

I was a ****er, a come forward in your face fight that would never let you rest. Certain incidents, when fighting this way, let me see clearly that the game would destroy my mind if I continued and I walked away from it as a fighter.

You must remember that these are indeed human beings in there battling and bleeding and sustaining irreversible damage while doing so. I have no problem watching a skilled technical boxer that displays good punches and elusive defensive skills. How much blood spills, how many knock downs or how long the guy was knocked out for does not determine the greatness of the bout in my mind.

Rockin'

This is the thing I'm getting at Rockin' - there's a middleground between the two extremes. I agree that seeing someone get really badly hurt isn't what it's about, but at the same time if every bout was like Byrd Williamson the sport would cease to exist.

[Easy-E]

I remember once (okay, several times) criticising Hopkins's incredibly negative performance against Howard Eastman, and getting the usual "you've never laced 'em up/not every fight can be Gatti-Ward/you don't know boxing, you obviously don't know what a feint is" knee jerk reactions.

Yet I've noticed it's becoming more and more prevelant for boxers to use the tools that allow them to do their job (which is, fundamentally, hitting their opponent) at the exclusion of that job itself.

Now, before you reply, let me make it clear: I love and appreciate the science and technique of pugilism. And I am NOT advocating that every fight should be a recreation of Manilla.

But what I am saying is that are we becoming so blindly tolerant of these skills and so educated upon technique that we're beginning to accept more and more bouts that are boxing in the purest sense without the implimentation of the "pain game"?

Let me give you some examples that have brought this to mind: last Saturday's UK bout which saw Audley Harrison win rounds by constantly moving and literally patting Danny Williams on the head. Technically, he's winning the round in terms of the sport because he's the only one landing. But they're not real punches, it's a cheat, a steal, a fraud.

Okay, go up to the "top" of the game: Hopkins and Taylor. Now, it's all very well feinting to make each other miss, waiting for the counter, etc. But after nine rounds of it, shouldn't there actually be a part where they... FIGHT?

I'm not asking for a tear-up where they're going all out and laying Hell for leather on each other. I'm asking for the intent to make genuine contact, to win a FIGHT, not a boxing match. Not necessarily to even hurt the other guy, or KO him or any of those things. Just something that says to me if you drew up a proportionate map of a boxing match, it should actually have at least 50% of it featuring two people actually hitting each other. I'm sure if you played back Hopkins-Taylor but just took all the actual punching out, you'd still have nine rounds to sit through.

Byrd-Williamson... the list goes on.

I used to love seeing Roy Jones feint for his counter... the difference was, Roy did actually used to hit off the counter, not (Hop-Taylor again) decide against it, move out of position, step back, go to throw a jab, reconsider, get in feinting position, realign his back foot....

i see what your getting at, but at the lower weights, esp hatton and cotto, your seeing alot of that "all out" style, and you also get a pretty nice mix of power and boxing skills with floyd and zab. those fights are consideribly more exciting to me, but you definitly have a point, weve seen alot of borefests latley