According to Bhop, Ruslan is bad for boxing because....

[Derranged]

I agree that dumbasses who nothing about the sport dont appreciate slick fighters but saying Ruslan is bad for the sport is just ******. Theres plenty of room for all styles.

[Kris Silver]

You need a balance of styles in the game.

Average fans will more commonly like agressive guys but that could just be one of em in the ring to create a good entertaining fight.

Bigger fans will like a mix from fight to fight.

There's not draaaastically less skilled defensive guys around these days.

If a tough guy like Prov happens to beat a well skilled defensive guy, then his offensive skills, and skill in power (takes training and technique) have overcome the other guys skillset. So Hop can probably get lost with this latest point as-well tbh.

[Marvellous1]

Did the op actually finish BHop's supposed point? Why exactly is Provodnikov bad for boxing, according to him?

I love the sport of boxing and the "why" or "what" is purely subjective. I don't need to justify it or make other people justify why they do. Whether you like certain styles or not, you should respect them all for doing what we geeks are only prepared to discuss/argue over.

BHop's entitled to his opinion but Ruslan is the one fighting his fights so he should just do what he does to win.

[Los Zetas]

Oh and being an offensive fighter is skill itself. You need to cut the ring, create the angles and pick your shots or you're going to get countered. Plus you need some head and body movement/guard because you will get hit going forward which hurts... yeah it's not a style that lasts as long, but it is not easy to do.

If Hopkins thinks it's not skilful then let's see him try and come forward and see how he does. We may see him on the damn floor again ala Calzaghe.

[-PBP-]

I don't think that's what he meant. He was more so criticizing media and fans for trying to force guys like Crawford to fight like Ruslan or they will be blackballed.

[bojangles1987]

No sport benefits when skill is undervalued or is secondary to ahletecism. You can be the toughest, roughest hardest hitting fighter in the world, but if you can only win by ko you get situations like matthysse nonito or ruslan where you can really only match them against other brawlers/punchers. If you're a pure athlete you get a rjj siuation where once it goes he's done.

Networks love brawlers because they have a short shelf life which limits the amount you have to pay them over the long term. Ruslan will be in great tv fights but he has no chance to beat any really skilled fighters in and around his weight class. You can aslo pay him a relative pittance.

The biggest stars in the history of the sport have alwasy been highly skilled. There is a rrason for that.

How can you say that when he damn near beat Tim Bradley, and with a different referee may have had a knockout win at various points in that fight?

[Deevel916]

No sport benefits when skill is undervalued or is secondary to ahletecism. You can be the toughest, roughest hardest hitting fighter in the world, but if you can only win by ko you get situations like matthysse nonito or ruslan where you can really only match them against other brawlers/punchers. If you're a pure athlete you get a rjj siuation where once it goes he's done.

Networks love brawlers because they have a short shelf life which limits the amount you have to pay them over the long term. Ruslan will be in great tv fights but he has no chance to beat any really skilled fighters in and around his weight class. You can aslo pay him a relative pittance.

The biggest stars in the history of the sport have alwasy been highly skilled. There is a rrason for that.

Not true. Aside from Floyd, networks love brawlers because they bring in higher viewership.

Secondly aside from Floyd the biggest stars in the sport although highly skilled were also ****ers. Tyson, srl, Duran, hearns, Hagler, Trinidad, Cotto, gatti, Pacquiao, foreman, liston, Frazier, etc... Ali was a pure boxer but was entertaining to watch. Also if he had the opportunity to go for the kill he took it.

[FilMor]

No sport benefits when skill is undervalued or is secondary to ahletecism. You can be the toughest, roughest hardest hitting fighter in the world, but if you can only win by ko you get situations like matthysse nonito or ruslan where you can really only match them against other brawlers/punchers. If you're a pure athlete you get a rjj siuation where once it goes he's done.

Networks love brawlers because they have a short shelf life which limits the amount you have to pay them over the long term. Ruslan will be in great tv fights but he has no chance to beat any really skilled fighters in and around his weight class. You can aslo pay him a relative pittance.

The biggest stars in the history of the sport have alwasy been highly skilled. There is a rrason for that.

He is coming of a win vs Bradley doe.

[Marvellous1]

Not true. Aside from Floyd, networks love brawlers because they bring in higher viewership.

Secondly aside from Floyd the biggest stars in the sport although highly skilled were also ****ers. Tyson, srl, Duran, hearns, Hagler, Trinidad, Cotto, gatti, Pacquiao, foreman, liston, Frazier, etc... Ali was a pure boxer but was entertaining to watch. Also if he had the opportunity to go for the kill he took it.

Did you just list Gatti in with "highly skilled" fighters? The guy was in some great fights but that's not how I'd ever describe him.

[Bigg Rigg]

This is the problem, fans of the slick style want people to say that's the best and the only way to fight. That it's super entertaining even when it's not and that action fighters are dumb, face first brawlers with no skill. **** their stamina and strong will, they have no skills, their just bums throwing punches. They say all of that but if u say the slick guys just run and grab all night you don't know **** about boxing. It's more entertaining seeing a guy try to win a round and take less punishment then seeing a battle of wills between two fighters going all out. It's very comical IMO.