as a boxing fan, which do you prefer?

[Canelo Phresh]

Playing it safe is a crude and limited way of describing a technical fighter. I love technical brilliance. Turning a fight into a chess match takes a level of cerebral adaptability and cunning that so few fighters possess today.

[DeadLikeMe]

I don't mind guys who play it safe in order to take advantage of their opponents weaknesses as the fight goes on. Guys who go in and realize after 1-2 rounds they can just coast to a UD without getting touched up are a pain though.

[JAB5239]

Playing it safe is a crude and limited way of describing a technical fighter. I love technical brilliance. Turning a fight into a chess match takes a level of cerebral adaptability and cunning that so few fighters possess today.

I disagree. A technical fighter uses all his skills to break a mother fighter down and win. Not always exciting, but it can be appreciated. A play it safe fighter does one or two things he knows he has the advantage in and waits it out. Smart? Yes. Exciting? No.

[brick wall]

i like to see skills put into action...if you have it use it to seek and destroy.

[Canelo Phresh]

I disagree. A technical fighter uses all his skills to break a mother fighter down and win. Not always exciting, but it can be appreciated. A play it safe fighter does one or two things he knows he has the advantage in and waits it out. Smart? Yes. Exciting? No.

I assumed it was a description for a technical fighter. If your talking a jab, jab, grab strategy than ok, Im with seek and destroy.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Floyd is a defensive fighter who I don't particularly like watching, but he employs ALL his skills. Its much more appealing though watching I guy feint, parry, slip punches go to the body and counter than it is watching a guy hold and hug when not waiting for openings. Don't you agree?

True but look at a lot of hws back in the days, they employed some skills and then went on to clinch a lot of times for the rest of the fight after the 5th round and on. Yet people called that "golden".

[JAB5239]

I don't mind guys who play it safe in order to take advantage of their opponents weaknesses as the fight goes on. Guys who go in and realize after 1-2 rounds they can just coast to a UD without getting touched up are a pain though.

Please vote my friend.

[JAB5239]

True but look at a lot of hws back in the days, they employed some skills and then went on to clinch a lot of times for the rest of the fight after the 5th round and on. Yet people called that "golden".

Please provide examples. As I stated in the other thread I have no doubt I can counter that with plenty of examples of my own. We're talking the sport as a whole though, at the ver least entire divisions and not individual exceptions.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Given just those two choices, I would have to go with "seek and destroy." But I like fighters that mix skill, defensive awareness and energetic offense...mostly boxer-punchers. In truth, early-prime Mike Tyson also fit the mold I just described. His defense was overshadowed by his explosive offense.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Please provide examples. As I stated in the other thread I have no doubt I can counter that with plenty of examples of my own. We're talking the sport as a whole though, at the ver least entire divisions and not individual exceptions.

I'll go over some fights over the weekend. Can't do that at the moment. As one that followed Foreman & Holyfield a while back it won't be hard to find.