Originally posted by Ray Corso
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Who had the more entertaining style: Butterbean or Wlad?
Collapse
-
-
Comment
-
There is a difference between being historically significant and being entertaining.
They are not always one and the same.
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by juggernaut666 View PostKlitchkos style is more for ppl who like technical boxing ...
Not really dude. I am drawn to technical fighters the most and I can't stand Wlad.
You can be technical and boring, and you can be technical and exciting.
Guys like Rigo, Lomachenko, Bradley, Fury, Golovkin, Roman, and Kovalev are all technical fighters who I consider exciting to watch.
Then there are guys like Devon, Wlad, Ward, Shiming, who I just really can't get into at all, and won't tune in to watch them intentionally.
Comment
-
How much better would Butterbean have been if he wasn't a fat mess? He'd have had a hell of a lot more speed, been able to throw a lot more punches and his arms would have had full range of movement.
But he wouldn't have had the following he had, his appeal was that he was a fat mess that could fight. It made all the fat messes of America feel like they could achieve something.
Comment
Comment