as a boxing fan, which do you prefer?

[The Big Dunn]

As a boxing fan what do you prefer and what gets you more amped up...fighter who seek and destroy or go down trying or guys who play it safe and seldom take chances? This is not about any one division or any particular fighter, just your personal preference.

Jabs the way you word this question is a little biased. Its not about just one fighter, its about both. if you have 2 equally matched opponents, regardless of skill level, you can get epic memorable fights. If you have a matchup of styles, as long as the opponents are equal, you can get an epic fight as well.

[JAB5239]

Jabs the way you word this question is a little biased. Its not about just one fighter, its about both. if you have 2 equally matched opponents, regardless of skill level, you can get epic memorable fights. If you have a matchup of styles, as long as the opponents are equal, you can get an epic fight as well.

Fair enough. But what if one has huge advantages? Example: would you rather watch Jones decimate Pazienza or Wlad play it safe against Ibragimov?

[Bushbaby]

I prefer to see a barn burner obviously. But if I see an underpowered fighter school on a favorite, that's good too.

[#1Assassin]

i think its a very poorly expressed question.

my favourite fighter of all time is mike mccallum. he was primarily a defensive fighter, he didnt take unnecessary risks unless he had to and picked his spots without leaving himself vulnerable. but mike mccallum came to fcking kill you! he was using his skills and smarts to get to you without getting hit back, but he was still looking to take you out.

james toney is another fighter i loved watching in his prime, a defensive counterpuncher. but off those counters he was looking to knock ppl out. he was a safety first fighter, but he was scoring KO's from that safe zone using his skills and smarts.

thats boxing at its best, true pugilism. fighters who can punch your lights out without getting hit back. safety first and seek and destroy, it takes skills though. thats what matters, skills.

id rather watch a quality pure boxer than a lesser brawler, a technical fight fought at a high skill level over a brawl between flawed fighters. i would rather watch hopkins in his prime when he would dish out savage beatings to his opponents then now when hes just looking for the decision since the skill level is the same. but id still rather watch hopkins today than someone with lesser skills and smarts even if it was an action fighter.

[tredh]

As a boxing fan what do you prefer and what gets you more amped up...fighter who seek and destroy or go down trying or guys who play it safe and seldom take chances? This is not about any one division or any particular fighter, just your personal preference.

Don't really like how the question is worded. You can play it safe and not take chances and still completely dominate your opponent in a fight thats not boring. A fighter can seek and try to destroy and it be very boring. It can be boring because the seeker can just be coming forward throwing arm punches and landing 3 out of every 20 punches he throws. How is that exciting?

Personally I like a good chess match where the fighters are trying to match skills and wits in the ring while engaging each other without to many lulls in action.

[JAB5239]

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.

My first counter, Holyfield-Bowe.

[Mr. Fantastic]

My first counter, Holyfield-Bowe.

Which one?

[D4thincarnation]

Boxers that go for the KO, who take there chances.

Boxing like all sport is entertainment, and the boxer that goes for the KO is much more entertaining that the boxer that plays it safe and is happy leaving in the judges hands.

Lets face it, judges are only there because of a safety aspect of the 12 round fight.

It would be great if we had unlimited rounds and then you have to win by stoppage.

Though with some boxers, their opponents would be put to sleep by the borefest of their no risk strategy.

[The Big Dunn]

Fair enough. But what if one has huge advantages? Example: would you rather watch Jones decimate Pazienza or Wlad play it safe against Ibragimov?

If the choices are at the extreme, most of us will choose the brutal KO over an exhibition of skills. Additionally, if you only reference the top 1% of greatest fights ever, castillo/corrales, gatti/ward, or ali/frazier, well thats easy.

I think the better question is display of skill vs display of heart.

Individually, I'd rather watch a guy like floyd or sweet pea over gatti or ward ANY day of the week because I like wtaching displays of skill.

But I doubt if floyd or sweet pea could ever display the level of heart gatti or ward has in their fights because they have the skills to get out of trouble.

[JAB5239]

i think its a very poorly expressed question.

my favourite fighter of all time is mike mccallum. he was primarily a defensive fighter, he didnt take unnecessary risks unless he had to and picked his spots without leaving himself vulnerable. but mike mccallum came to fcking kill you! he was using his skills and smarts to get to you without getting hit back, but he was still looking to take you out.

james toney is another fighter i loved watching in his prime, a defensive counterpuncher. but off those counters he was looking to knock ppl out. he was a safety first fighter, but he was scoring KO's from that safe zone using his skills and smarts.

thats boxing at its best, true pugilism. fighters who can punch your lights out without getting hit back. safety first and seek and destroy, it takes skills though. thats what matters, skills.

id rather watch a quality pure boxer than a lesser brawler, a technical fight fought at a high skill level over a brawl between flawed fighters. i would rather watch hopkins in his prime when he would dish out savage beatings to his opponents then now when hes just looking for the decision since the skill level is the same. but id still rather watch hopkins today than someone with lesser skills and smarts even if it was an action fighter.

Using ALL your skills is what's key here. Using every aspect of you game can and SHOULD be appreciated. Using a jab, hugging and biding your time is just plain unexciting. Am I wrong about that?