Whats more important, fighting to win or fighting to entertain?

[The Big Dunn]

****** question because either answer is clearly right...
If you only care about the one thing winning and not giving your fans the entertainment value for the money they spent on your fight then that's your choice.
Then If you fight entertaining its obviously more risky but that fighter will always be held more higher regard than the fight scared boring kind of fighter who wants to woo the crowd to sleep.

what entertaining fighter that keeps losing gets the opportunity to be on TV in big fights? Maybe some HWT's but otherwise I know of none.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Ward gets paid, he just doesn't get paid as much as foyd, manny, canelo, cotto, chavez jr., you know the upper echelon. He's on the 2nd tier with froch, broner, etc which isn't bad.

Froch got paid at least double what Ward made for his last fight with Dawson. Broner made close to the same amount and he hasn't anywhere near the same comp.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

what entertaining fighter that keeps losing gets the opportunity to be on TV in big fights? Maybe some HWT's but otherwise I know of none.

Zab Judah

[The Big Dunn]

Zab Judah

Zab won fights. He beat matts, he beat vernon parris. without winning he wouldn't get fights with Khan or Garcia.

He doesn't get fights based on being entertaining.

[M Bison]

It's a double edged sword though because if you aren't entertaining, you don't get paid. Look at Andre Ward, he has to seek out a fight with a guy he already convincingly beat to make big money. Also I don't think you necessarily have to be a "brawler" or someone who takes a lot of punishment to be entertaining.

That's exactly right, I'd green K you If I could.

Exactly aswell a fight that is one sided can be entertaining aswell its just either the case of that style might not be in that fighters repertoire.

I'll happily stand my ground and say If I was to pay for a PPV event it wouldn't be the type of fight that Rigondeaux put on against Donaire, call it what you will but that fight was a master-class yet extremely boring all at the same time which is exactly something that wont be mentioned 30/40years down the line.

Muhammad Ali grasped the attention of non-boxing fans because of his entertaining style and his charismatic abilities so to say entertaining is completely irrelevant?

Lets put it like this winning gets you success and fans because well bandwagon fans will follow success.
Entertainment gives a unpredictability which leads to the entertainment; MORE fans will want to watch this fighter whether he is a champion or not and bottom line he will make more cash than the fighter who is fighting in a by far less attractive style.

Winning is good but these guys are all in it for money and they'd be lying to you If they said they weren't.

[The Big Dunn]

Froch got paid at least double what Ward made for his last fight with Dawson. Broner made close to the same amount and he hasn't anywhere near the same comp.

I was thinking the 2nd tier as a range from near 1 mil- 4 mil. Maybe some of the other guys are in this range too.

Ward doesn't have froch's nationalistic fanbase nor does he attract fans like broner with his out of ring antics. But he still makes good money.

If ward didn't win he wouldn't make anywhere near that.

[M Bison]

what entertaining fighter that keeps losing gets the opportunity to be on TV in big fights? Maybe some HWT's but otherwise I know of none.

There is plenty of fighters which are entertaining who are winning.
Kind of a irrelevant question but If you want me to mention some who have lossed and bring entertainment?
Manny Pacquiao, Brandon Rios...

The reason Adrien Broner is earning alot is because of his brash big mouth style that is entertainment, running the mouth off to sell himself which is working.

[JoeKidd]

If you want the fans, you entertain. However, the boxer can read his fan base and determine whether his fans prefer the W: Floyd, Rigo, Canelo, new Chinese guy, Bhop, Ward. Fans going to a Pacquiao or Matthysse fight would be pissed if there's no action, regardless who wins.

As a boxing fan, do I care who wins? I want to be entertained! Action with skill!

[jayjames616]

****** question because either answer is clearly right...
If you only care about the one thing winning and not giving your fans the entertainment value for the money they spent on your fight then that's your choice.
Then If you fight entertaining its obviously more risky but that fighter will always be held more higher regard than the fight scared boring kind of fighter who wants to woo the crowd to sleep.

This is a ****** question because there is only one answer. The question asks what's "more important". If you can say ANYTHING is more important than winning means you are thinking WAY too much.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

That's exactly right, I'd green K you If I could.

Exactly aswell a fight that is one sided can be entertaining aswell its just either the case of that style might not be in that fighters repertoire.

Yeah. My favourite fighters are guys like Prince Naseem, Roy Jones, Sergio Martinez. And these guys won most of their fights in a pretty one sided fashion but they were entertaining at the same time.