The casual fans got it right, while "Hardcore fans" act like their ***** dont stink.

[Eff Pandas]

Second people keep using the term Sweet Scirnce but totally ignore the latter of the saying which is Of Brusing.

First off Sweet Science is pretty much just a term hack boxing writers use these days not some illuminati code word for what boxing should be. Second, if you are getting hit & even Sweet Pea & Mayweather got/get hit you are gonna get some bruising so idk wtf that even means in regards to what you are suggesting. You can box in a phone booth or in a airport terminal & get bruised up so what that saying has to do with your stance is lost on me & has no logic to your stance.

Bottom line for me is I'd be all cool with rule changes to make a more aggressive sport that non-boxing fans (ie "casual fans") would enjoy more, but you'd need to change the current rules of boxing to get to that point. In the meantime guys should use the style they either feel comfortable with or is the best style for their natural skills & attributes.

[brettWall]

Bottom line for me is I'd be all cool with rule changes to make a more aggressive sport that non-boxing fans (ie "casual fans") would enjoy more, but you'd need to change the current rules of boxing to get to that point. In the meantime guys should use the style they either feel comfortable with or is the best style for their natural skills & attributes.

They don't have to change the rules. No one is talking about changing the rules. Problem is effing refs don't enforce them. Excessive clinchers, for example, rarely get any warning.

***** thing about so-called hardcore fans is that theyre predictable. Runners and clinchers are automatically praised to high heavens when in reality they're one-dimensional. They lacked inside skills, yet they're slick doe. And the guy who does have inside skills get zero credit. There are even cases where common sense is all it takes like when a short guy is chasing a runner, then the come-forward label begins. How tf would he get his shots without closing in?

[boxinghead530]

First off Sweet Science is pretty much just a term hack boxing writers use these days not some illuminati code word for what boxing should be. Second, if you are getting hit & even Sweet Pea & Mayweather got/get hit you are gonna get some bruising so idk wtf that even means in regards to what you are suggesting. You can box in a phone booth or in a airport terminal & get bruised up so what that saying has to do with your stance is lost on me & has no logic to your stance.

Bottom line for me is I'd be all cool with rule changes to make a more aggressive sport that non-boxing fans (ie "casual fans") would enjoy more, but you'd need to change the current rules of boxing to get to that point. In the meantime guys should use the style they either feel comfortable with or is the best style for their natural skills & attributes.

The term the sweet science of bruising derived from having the ability to get in the ring and be able to totally bruise up your opponent while taking no punishment. The sweet science is not getting in your bike and running to avoid getting hit and then throw 20 punches I that round. The sweet science means being able to do real visible damage on your oppenent while you have the skill to not take damage.

[Deevel916]

The term the sweet science of bruising derived from having the ability to get in the ring and be able to totally bruise up your opponent while taking no punishment. The sweet science is not getting in your bike and running to avoid getting hit and then throw 20 punches I that round. The sweet science means being able to do real visible damage on your oppenent while you have the skill to not take damage.

I think some of these boxing snobs should instead watch Capoeira. The art of hitless fighting.

[The Big Dunn]

So much flowmo is this post.

Talk to your boy Canelo and ask him why he didn't press harder and try to win. Oh, yeah It's Bardock. in your mind Floyd should've done what Meldrick Taylor did.

[Merciless1]

I love the styles from all over the world. My thing is if you're going to be a brawler be the best at it. If you're going to go in there & swing for the fences then do it smart. I want to see a thinking fighter not someone who just goes in there to slug it out just cause they aren't scared & can punch. I like skill & that's not to say I haven't been put to sleep by some fights/fighters. If one fighter is being dominated by his opponent then it is up to him to make the adjustments. Why should I lower my skill level to yours for entertainment purpose? It must be nice to be that damn good & I'm not just talking about Floyd. That's a problem all fighters should wish for right there.

[MASTERBX]

Losers

Smart people will always defeat dumb people in any endeavor.
Maybe we should start another sport called “The Dumb Science.”
I can't compete so let's change the rules. And they wonder why no one can challenge Money May.

[Deevel916]

I love the styles from all over the world. My thing is if you're going to be a brawler be the best at it. If you're going to go in there & swing for the fences then do it smart. I want to see a thinking fighter not someone who just goes in there to slug it out just cause they aren't scared & can punch. I like skill & that's not to say I haven't been put to sleep by some fights/fighters. If one fighter is being dominated by his opponent then it is up to him to make the adjustments. Why should I lower my skill level to yours for entertainment purpose? It must be nice to be that damn good & I'm not just talking about Floyd. That's a problem all fighters should wish for right there.

Who's asking that? What many fight fans are saying is....If fighter A is totally dominating fighter b, why not go for the kill rather than continuing to do the bare minimum to secure a safe points decision? That's not asking fighter A to lower his skill level for entertainment purposes. Instead that's asking fighter A to impose his superior skills on an overmatched opponent and close the show.

[The Big Dunn]

Who's asking that? What many fight fans are saying is....If fighter A is totally dominating fighter b, why not go for the kill rather than continuing to do the bare minimum to secure a safe points decision? That's not asking fighter A to lower his skill level for entertainment purposes. Instead that's asking fighter A to impose his superior skills on an overmatched opponent and close the show.

Because fighter A risks losing the fight by getting caught with something that either KO's him or leads to a KO/TKO.

The loss could mean a reduction in purse the next fight, losing a a fight where a title is on the line, loss of a #1 ranking which takes them out of a title fight, or, as in the case of Meldrick Taylor, you could suffer career ending damage in addition to a career trajectory changing loss.

Now can you explain why fighter A should take that risk when a KO win and a UD win count the exact same?

[Merciless1]

Who's asking that? What many fight fans are saying is....If fighter A is totally dominating fighter b, why not go for the kill rather than continuing to do the bare minimum to secure a safe points decision? That's not asking fighter A to lower his skill level for entertainment purposes. Instead that's asking fighter A to impose his superior skills on an overmatched opponent and close the show.

Manny was in his post fight interview. I can understand what you're saying, but would you risk losing the biggest, most rewarding fight of your career? You know the one everyone said he needed to seal his legacy (Floyd). How many times in post fight interviews have you heard Floyd say "I was going for the knockout"? He just goes about it in a way that he limits his opponents chance to flatten him on the flip side. I don't really see the problem. Everyone that dislikes Floyd & his style can't help but to watch him.