Why do some "boxing fans" shame you for liking pure boxers?

[vman075]

Martyr thread right here. "Us pure boxing fans are so persecuted, they just don't understand."

Everyone give me a break. Pure boxing fans do the same thing to fans of brawlers. How many times have we heard "face first brawler" "has no defense" "fights like a mummy" "he has no skill, boxing is hit and don't get hit". You did exactly that in your title, you wrote why do some "boxing fans", as if fans of different styles aren't actually boxing fans.

I happen to enjoy both styles but more inclined to root for brawlers. I love boxing as a sport but the main goal is to be entertained. I enjoy watching brawlers more and believe me I've heard many times "you just don't know what real boxing is". Fans of pure boxers do the exact same thing. People just like to defend their style.

[Sweet Jones]

I don't get it either.

The only styles I dislike are constantly negative spoilers like Ishe Smith and Carlos Molina and brawlers with no head movement or any defense at all that plod in straight lines. Even then I try not to always bash them I simply don't watch them fight.

Ruslan probably falls into the latter but he is an exception, I admire his heart and at least he can counter. Its hard not to be a fan of someone who lacks so badly but makes up with it through sheer determination and will and almost finds a way to win everytime.

I have no problem with this. I just think most who respect boxers (not saying you don't) feel the same way about guys who lack one punch power and have to use other aspects of their game to win.

There are so many aspects of a fight to respect: will, skill, power, speed, ring IQ, generalship, determination/heart, chin, footwork, etc. Not sure why some are so disrespectful to the some aspects of the full spectrum of tools that can be used to win a fight.

[vman075]

simply because they don't know any better. if they ever experienced the nuances, precision and brutality of the fight they would change their views, their opinions and most of all the integrity of these forums.

This right here is why I hate fans of pure boxers. They have a better than everyone attitude, snotty a*s attitude. Why can't i just like seeing a fight more. I realize the skill involved Rigondeaux and Mayweather's styles but I enjoy watching guy's with more offensive styles. Why does that automatically make me the dumber fan? That I just don't know any better? This whole thread is complete hypocrisy, f cking fans of pure boxers look down on fans of brawlers like they're morons.

[Rockin']

This right here is why I hate fans of pure boxers. They have a better than everyone attitude, snotty a*s attitude. Why can't i just like seeing a fight more. I realize the skill involved Rigondeaux and Mayweather's styles but I enjoy watching guy's with more offensive styles. Why does that automatically make me the dumber fan? That I just don't know any better? This whole thread is complete hypocrisy, f cking fans of pure boxers look down on fans of brawlers like they're morons.

simple minded cave men fighting with clubs was banned a long time ago, you missed your window...........

I appreciate all styles of fighting.

I believe that it makes you a dumber fan simply because you just asked me why it makes you a dumber fan. A rabid fan would never even pose such a question.

There can be technical genius in both approaches.

and chances are that you simply don't know any better

[The Ninth Layer]

I'm going to try to tackle this thread a little more directly as I'm not a fan of "runners" in the ring.

Boxing is a sport but it is also a fight, especially in the professionals. Boxers make money because people want to pay to see them fight. It doesn't matter why people want to see them fight, as long as they want to see it. If nobody wants to pay to see you fight then your'e not going very far in the sport. Looking good on TV is super important for every boxer, because every fight is an opportunity to convince someone you are worth paying money to see.

In any fight there is always a territory battle; in boxing this is called ring generalship. It's the idea of using the space in the ring effectively. Good moment establishes angles for you to land punches that your opponent cannot easily counter, for example. The best place to be in a ring is in the center of it, because if you're in the center then you have space in every direction whereas your opponent has his movement restricted. In general it's the aggressor of a fight who takes the center, because the aggressor of a fight is more comfortable engaging and thus wants to cut off space and force the opponent into one.

It is much better body language in a fight to stand your ground and land punches than to move away and stand punches. Boxing fans and even causal fans understand that when Floyd is up against the ropes and exchanging with Manny, it means Floyd feels confident that he can win this exchange by blocking and countering Pacquiao with precise shots. If we saw Floyd darting off the ropes every time an opponent approached him, as he did at times against Maidana in their rematch, then the body language sent is "I can't stand my ground against this guy."

If you back up all the time, you make it impossible for your opponent to do anything to you besides charge in or stare at you in a corner. That's great if you like throwing 30 punches a round and getting hit with nothing, but it is AWFUL to watch for anyone wanting any kind of suspense in a fight. There's absolutely no satisfaction or catharsis in a victory like that; it's frustrating for everyone not directly a part of that fighter's team. Floyd-Manny was a pretty low-scoring affair but at least there was tension in the fight, there were moments where Manny would get off a good flurry and you felt like something might happen even as those punches were getting blocked.

Canelo-Lara was an AWFUL fight. It was also PPV and a lot of people paid to watch it. Thankfully I wasn't one of them. There's a lot of debate as to who should have won this fight but what even happened in the fight that was worth debating? At no point did Lara ever look like he wanted to be the man to beat Canelo. He looked like the guy who wanted to edge Canelo. It was horrible body language. How can you pick a guy to win any close round where he absolutely refuses to stand his ground?

Lara and Canelo averaged a little more than 30 punches a round. That's a very low number for a big PPV fight. There was a round in which Lara only threw twenty punches. That's one punch every nine seconds. Could Canelo have thrown more punches? Sure, he could have fought better, cut off the ring better, etc. But Lara could have also thrown more punches, and chose instead to make it a potshot fight with his footwork.

Hardcore boxing fans are not the majority of people spending money on fights. The couple hundred people who post on this forum every day aren't the people dropping big money on fights. Just look at Mayweather-Pacquiao, you can bet that at least 80% in the crowd DKSAB. Canelo-Kirkland drew a huge crowd and I'll bet you that a lot of the people in attendance had never seen a live boxing match before. HBO drew their biggest audience since like 2006 and you have to wonder how many of those viewers had never seen a live fight before. Nobody is holding the boring Lara fight against Canelo. Nobody is calling out for a Canelo-Lara rematch either.

I have nothing against great technique, but when people act all indignant that these defensive-focused fighters are derided as runners, this is why. People want to see action in the ring. They want to enjoy some drama and suspense. It's why they are paying money. They don't want to find themselves watching twenty-second stretches of rounds without a single punch thrown in them. People defend Lara and Rigo by saying "the other guy didn't do enough to make it a fight" but while that's true it didn't make the fight any more pleasant to sit through, especially not for a $50 ticket or a $65 ppv price.

[vman075]

simple minded cave men fighting with clubs was banned a long time ago, you missed your window...........

I appreciate all styles of fighting.

I believe that it makes you a dumber fan simply because you just asked me why it makes you a dumber fan. A rabid fan would never even pose such a question.

There can be technical genius in both approaches.

and chances are that you simply don't know any better

I didn't ask you in a serious sense why it would make me a dumber fan because there is no legitimate answer (bc clearly out of the two of us you are the dumber fan).

I beg to differ that I'm not a rabid fan I'm just not uptight snotty piece of **** like yourself. There are world class hall of fame boxing experts who share the same opinion as me so hop off your high horse moron, you're not as special as you think you are

[Box-Office]

Some are new fans that were introduced by Pac ko'ing people so they are only used to one style. Some are disgruntled fans of fighters that lost to pure boxers. So they take their frustration out on the entire style of fighting. Some are just blood thirsty meatheads that would rather see a one sided showcase beat down over a chess match between two ATGs.

Several reasons. At the end of the day everybody has their preferences and its just something we all need to accept. Luckily boxing offers everything for everybody.

I do, hence the first line of my post "all styles make the boxing world go round". However, it is from the rock'em sock'em crowd that throws insults and a similar thread on NSB (if you noticed) that compelled me to make this thread.

Now of course there is Canelo or Crawford who mix it up, but if somebody doesn't want to it doesn't make them the aforementioned insults in the OP.

[Box-Office]

The short answer is that "pure" boxers aren't very entertaining. It's practically the definition of being a "pure" boxer: someone who is there to outfence you instead of outfight you.

From a technical perspective it can be fascinating to watch a pure boxer move around and control a fight. But from an "I paid money to see this" perspective, it can be pretty frustrating watching two guys strafe around each other without throwing anything of substance.

There's nothing more frustrating than seeing a fighter who is obviously faster and more powerful than his opponent just coasting instead of pressing his advantage. It's hard to respect a fighter who remains cautious at all times even when it's unnecessary.

Finally the ultimate benchmark of skill in boxing is whether you can close the show out early. If these pure boxers are so good, fans will always ask why they aren't going for the knockout or at least asserting their presence on the fight.

That's Mayweather yes, but that isn't always the case. Even with Mayweather his hands are not the same and he can't "Gatti" people either unless he catches you coming in (or sucker punch lol). A guy like Lara can't step up the gas and "beat down" someone. Doesn't have the power. Same with Rigo.

Here's a question: is Terence Crawford a "pure" boxer? He is very talented, has a great amount of skill moving forward and back, can fight in an orthodox or southpaw stance, and can lead or counterpunch. I would consider him a "pure" boxer, and he's someone that fans love because he knows when to accelerate his pace and assert himself in a fight.

Yeah, Crawford is definitely up there, but of course there are levels of pureness right. I mean someone like Lara takes it to another level and if people have an issue with that. Find another sport and as I suggested watch Kickboxing. I'm not being sarcastic with the suggestion, it is really fun. Now I don't have a problem with any style, it makes the "boxing world go round", but the "rock'em sock'em" crowd really needs to take a breather for once and think.

[Box-Office]

I don't get it either.

The only styles I dislike are constantly negative spoilers like Ishe Smith and Carlos Molina and brawlers with no head movement or any defense at all that plod in straight lines. Even then I try not to always bash them I simply don't watch them fight.

Ruslan probably falls into the latter but he is an exception, I admire his heart and at least he can counter. Its hard not to be a fan of someone who lacks so badly but makes up with it through sheer determination and will and almost finds a way to win everytime.

I actually feel pitty for Provo and Rios given the punishment they take. Not good. Also Gradovich.

Also guys like GGG are also very good boxers, but hey they have the power that makes people lose the fight before the first bell even rings (mentally), so you can afford to walk them down and make it exciting especially because they cut off the ring so well. Same with Kovalev. Or or it is their "choice" to be more open, but the ones that don't are not pu55ies.

Again, I'm not criticizing other people's tastes, but it is the brawler crowd that starts it.

[Box-Office]

Martyr thread right here. "Us pure boxing fans are so persecuted, they just don't understand."

Everyone give me a break. Pure boxing fans do the same thing to fans of brawlers. How many times have we heard "face first brawler" "has no defense" "fights like a mummy" "he has no skill, boxing is hit and don't get hit". You did exactly that in your title, you wrote why do some "boxing fans", as if fans of different styles aren't actually boxing fans.

I happen to enjoy both styles but more inclined to root for brawlers. I love boxing as a sport but the main goal is to be entertained. I enjoy watching brawlers more and believe me I've heard many times "you just don't know what real boxing is". Fans of pure boxers do the exact same thing. People just like to defend their style.

May be because guys who can box pure don't even get put on TV or have to struggle and walk through fire to be relevant, those fans are marginalized in favor of casuals, where as brawlers like Rios whom if we examine determines that his best win is Alvarado (twice), now guess who is Alvarado's best win? Keeps getting good fights.

I do agree and you raise a great point of the pure boxer fans attitude towards brawlers. The fact is all styles make boxing what it is, so it is ignorant on their behalf.