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

[Deevel916]

Dude, nice spin attempt. There is a reason "styles make fights".

If you have all the skills, you can adapt to any style. When you don't, you make it easier for your opponent to win. Simple as that. This works the opposite in other sports.

Not being able to make FT's, for example, means basketball games are often closer than they should be and thus more dramatic. Not being able to cut off the ring or neutralize a right hand in boxing causes you to stop punching and makes the fight boring and uneventful.

It is startling that posters like you would not criticize a pro boxer to get away with not mastering his craft and criticize those that have.

You said yesterday you like Tennis. I guess Serena and Djokavic should get worse to make their matches more enjoyable?

Its no spin attempt. I'll use the Floyd/Pac fight as an example. You amongts other Floyd diehards have come out in defense of Floyd and blamed the fight being lackluster on Pac's inability to make it exciting with quotes like..."Floyd did what Floyd does, while Pac didnt sell out to make it exciting". Basically your saying that Floyd's style by nature isnt exciting and needed an exciting action fighter in order make it an exciting fight.

The point of my last post was, if you're a master boxer, shouldnt you be able to do as you please against a lesser skilled fighter even if that means taking it to him and making it a more entertaining fight? Why sit back and do the bare minimum and not take any risk? Is it effective for some fighters? Sure. Is it entertaining? Not so much. That's the point of this thread.

[VERSION1 (V1)]

Its no spin attempt. I'll use the Floyd/Pac fight as an example. You amongts other Floyd diehards have come out in defense of Floyd and blamed the fight being lackluster on Pac's inability to make it exciting with quotes like..."Floyd did what Floyd does, while Pac didnt sell out to make it exciting". Basically your saying that Floyd's style by nature isnt exciting and needed an exciting action fighter in order make it an exciting fight.

The point of my last post was, if you're a master boxer, shouldnt you be able to do as you please against a lesser skilled fighter even if that means taking it to him and making it a more entertaining fight? Why sit back and do the bare minimum and not take any risk? Is it effective for some fighters? Sure. Is it entertaining? Not so much. That's the point of this thread.

some think it is some think it not

[Divine Hammer]

Its no spin attempt. I'll use the Floyd/Pac fight as an example. You amongts other Floyd diehards have come out in defense of Floyd and blamed the fight being lackluster on Pac's inability to make it exciting with quotes like..."Floyd did what Floyd does, while Pac didnt sell out to make it exciting". Basically your saying that Floyd's style by nature isnt exciting and needed an exciting action fighter in order make it an exciting fight.

The point of my last post was, if you're a master boxer, shouldnt you be able to do as you please against a lesser skilled fighter even if that means taking it to him and making it a more entertaining fight? Why sit back and do the bare minimum and not take any risk? Is it effective for some fighters? Sure. Is it entertaining? Not so much. That's the point of this thread.

because floyd's a coward even his own dad yelled it in front of his face to him. "You're fighting like your scared, man!!!" hahahahahahahaha.

floyd isn't about the "sweet science" because that would involve ACTUAL FIGHTING. floyd is all about running and playing tag.

[SplitSecond]

I don't think anyone can find what Mayweather did vs Pacquiao exciting. Has anyone tried watching highlights of that fight? Awful highlights, besides maybe two punches the only highlights you could make is of Mayweather landing jabs or "looking" cool(that swag).

But then again I've had this boring talk before and I remember people actually telling me that Rigonduex vs Agbeko was exciting(if you understand boxing) and I can't appreciate the subtle nuances of Rigondueax ring intelligence. I tell them there was nothing to see there, Rigo hit Agbeko and Agbeko was scared to lead, and Rigo doesn't lead, so there was no nuances or anything to appreciate, it was a sht fight.

[The Big Dunn]

Its no spin attempt. I'll use the Floyd/Pac fight as an example. You amongts other Floyd diehards have come out in defense of Floyd and blamed the fight being lackluster on Pac's inability to make it exciting with quotes like..."Floyd did what Floyd does, while Pac didnt sell out to make it exciting". Basically your saying that Floyd's style by nature isnt exciting and needed an exciting action fighter in order make it an exciting fight.

The point of my last post was, if you're a master boxer, shouldnt you be able to do as you please against a lesser skilled fighter even if that means taking it to him and making it a more entertaining fight? Why sit back and do the bare minimum and not take any risk? Is it effective for some fighters? Sure. Is it entertaining? Not so much. That's the point of this thread.

More spin. None of us are making any statement about Floyd's style when commenting on the specific Floyd/Manny fight. We are talking about what the draw of the fight was:

Manny's aggressive style vs Floyd's style of boxing

Floyd boxed, Manny failed to be aggressive because he couldn't cut off the ring and couldn't prevent Floyd from landing the right hand. Pointing this out is not suggesting the art of boxing is boring.

Winning, and not entertainment, is the priority of any fight. As such, the actions of any fighter, regardless of style, need to be geared toward winning. As long as they are, excitement should take care of itself.

The progression of the match determines what actions are necessary. If the boxer has a lead, he is not obligated to change and fight in a way that gives the opponent a better chance to win. The opponent needs to press for the win. If the boxer is losing and he continues to box, he is giving up the fight and should be called out for not abandoning that style to try and win.

[Deevel916]

some think it is some think it not

I agree. Different strokes for different folks. I myself have no issue with technical fighters so long as they come to actually box and not try to spoil their way to a points victory. JMM is an excellent example of a technical fighter who comes to fight rather than play it safe. Same for Floyd at 130 & 135.

Its fighters like Lara, Klitchsko and at times the current Floyd who I find a hard time being entertained by. Lara literally "runs". Klitchsko's strategy of jab and lean on his opponent is nauseating. Floyd has resorted to nullifying rather than actually fighting. His strategy is to win fights by doing as little fighting as possible. Effective for him? Sure, but from an entertainment standpoint it can be frustrating at times.

[Deevel916]

More spin. None of us are making any statement about Floyd's style when commenting on the specific Floyd/Manny fight. We are talking about what the draw of the fight was:

Manny's aggressive style vs Floyd's style of boxing

Floyd boxed, Manny failed to be aggressive because he couldn't cut off the ring and couldn't prevent Floyd from landing the right hand. Pointing this out is not suggesting the art of boxing is boring.

Winning, and not entertainment, is the priority of any fight. As such, the actions of any fighter, regardless of style, need to be geared toward winning. As long as they are, excitement should take care of itself.

The progression of the match determines what actions are necessary. If the boxer has a lead, he is not obligated to change and fight in a way that gives the opponent a better chance to win. The opponent needs to press for the win. If the boxer is losing and he continues to box, he is giving up the fight and should be called out for not abandoning that style to try and win.

This is where you veered left in this thread. The OP isnt talking about what style or strategy is more or less effective when it comes to winning fights. The point of the thread was to point out how diehard boxing snobs defend boring matches and fighters who put forth little effort to provide entertainment in a sport that desperately needs entertaining fights.

[The Big Dunn]

This is where you veered left in this thread. The OP isnt talking about what style or strategy is more or less effective when it comes to winning fights. The point of the thread was to point out how diehard boxing snobs defend boring matches and fighters who put forth little effort to provide entertainment in a sport that desperately needs entertaining fights.

I didn't veer away from anything. I explained it in the last 2 paragraphs. I will do so again.

"Snobs" do not defend boring matches, they ask why, for example FLoyd/Manny, was the fight boring. In almost every case its because the guy who was losing didn't step up his efforts to try and win.

All we are saying is entertainment for us is a byproduct of the effort made to achieve victory. If both men are committed to winning, the fight will surely not be boring.

For you and others, "entertainment" is derived from something else. If one man stops trying to win, you and others are asking the boxer winning to try and "win more" to make up for that. You want one man to risk losing since the other man is not trying to win anymore.

I find that completely and utterly incomprehensible.

[Tom Cruise]

I love that OP thinks there are tonnes of guys out there watching boxing, 'just cause'.

We watch it because its the best thing on at the time. Even boring boxing matches are more entertaining than watching most of the **** thats on tv.

Also why do people (on both sides tbf) think its ok to tell other people what they should find entertaining? I enjoy watching people who have mastered their craft doing things that i could never dream of doing. If thats Rigondeaux almostt shutting out a P4P top 5 fighter or Gatti/Ward taking obscene punishment its all entertaining in one way or another to me. People just need to chill out and stop worrying what other people are doing with their time

[Chrismart]

I look at casual fans as fans who just tune in for the big hyped fights, and don't have a broad knowledge of the sport.

A misconception i've seen of late, is that you are a casual fan if you don't like every fight that's made, or won't tune into every fight that's made. In my opinion, there's no truth to that claim at all.