Do you prefer the slick/technical boxer or the aggressive/offensive fighter?

[////]

I really prefer guys who are always trying to finish.

I'm not a sports fan. Never followed any teams and just generally don't get sports. I specifically like fighting/combat and it's the only athletic thing I've really done.

My taste in boxing reflects that. I see guys like Floyd, Calzaghe, Ward, etc who aren't really "fighting" so much as finding creative ways to score and just find it cheesy and hard to watch.

Sit there thinking "One little change in the way the scoring rules are worded, this guy would be 0-40, not 40-0". Some little semantics made their careers.

I'm conflicted over fighters who are somewhere in between like Wlad who use ugly tactics but usually to set up a brutal KO.

[HandsofIron]

The problem with this question is that you can be a slick/technical fighter and an offensive fighter at the same time.

That's my preference, all three. But I always lean towards technical, as a boxer myself, but it's a common misconception that you can't be defensive and offensive at the same, as well as technical and offensive at the same time.

Good post, I agree.

[Sun_Tzu]

I like technically sound boxer/punchers.

[daggum]

I really prefer guys who are always trying to finish.

I'm not a sports fan. Never followed any teams and just generally don't get sports. I specifically like fighting/combat and it's the only athletic thing I've really done.

My taste in boxing reflects that. I see guys like Floyd, Calzaghe, Ward, etc who aren't really "fighting" so much as finding creative ways to score and just find it cheesy and hard to watch.

Sit there thinking "One little change in the way the scoring rules are worded, this guy would be 0-40, not 40-0". Some little semantics made their careers.

I'm conflicted over fighters who are somewhere in between like Wlad who use ugly tactics but usually to set up a brutal KO.

a 250 pound man leaning on his opponent until he's exhausted so then he can throw power punches=boxing gold

[IronDanHamza]

I like both.

It takes a lot of skill to manuever your way into range and inside and then go to work there. Someone like Roberto Duran for instance did this masterfully. Feints, slipping shots and positioning himself perfectly to come back with counters. His opponents would think they're out of range and suddenly out of no where he was right in their face.

Then on the flipside I love watching a guy box off the backfoot and use lateral movement and box a guys ears off using the jab and counters.

I basically am a fan of skill, if a fighter is skilled then I like it. Also versatility, big fan of a fighter that can perform well in numerous areas.

[HandsofIron]

It seems like most boxing fans prefer the aggressive fighter that will exchange and ****. Which do you prefer?

Look the bottom line is this, regardless of style, fighters have to give the people what they want and paid for, a good ol' fashioned fight! That's the problem with boxing today, fighters don't fight anymore and that's what turns people off. Mike Tyson said it best, "boxers are scared to fight each other."

And to answer your question, the boxer-puncher is my favorite style; best of both worlds, the punching power of a slugger and the fundamentals of a boxer.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I do prefer the aggressive fighters, but it really all boils down to each individual fighter and how well rounded they are. Some guys are aggressive but pointlessly walk into punches, which for me, is ****** either way you look at it. Golovkin did this for Brook because he knew Brook couldn't hurt him. I've noticed he hasn't done this against hardly anybody else. He generally uses smart aggression, which I can't help but enjoy.

The slick fighters can be amusing with the right opponents. However, if all they can do is fight moving backward, that gets really boring. I like fighters who can do both. While they are stronger in one area than another, they at least have the skills to do what's necessary to beat the man in front of them.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I like both.

It takes a lot of skill to manuever your way into range and inside and then go to work there. Someone like Roberto Duran for instance did this masterfully. Feints, slipping shots and positioning himself perfectly to come back with counters. His opponents would think they're out of range and suddenly out of no where he was right in their face.

Then on the flipside I love watching a guy box off the backfoot and use lateral movement and box a guys ears off using the jab and counters.

I basically am a fan of skill, if a fighter is skilled then I like it. Also versatility, big fan of a fighter that can perform well in numerous areas.

I agree all the way. The older I get, the more I am like that. When I watched the Thomas Williams, Jr.- Edwin Rodriguez fight, I knew I had changed as a fan. In my earlier days, I would have enjoyed that scrap. However, now I thought it was ****** and unnecessary. I like a good brawl to a point, but when there's no skill involved, it just irks me as being very ****** and reckless.

A skillful fighter can be either or and still entertain the fans. I loved watching Calzaghe beat Lacy because even though it was one-sided, Calzaghe made it fun. That's the mark of an entertaining fighter.

[Disturbed]

I like the hybrid of the two, or a technical brawler. Juan Manuel Marquez comes in to my mind. Technical, great counters and ring IQ, still had some entertaining wars and lots of activity (many thrown punches) etc in his fights.

I also like watching Lomachenko.

I would love to watch Rigo if he would throw more punches. When he shines, its just beautiful to watch, the sharpness, accuracy, THE MOVEMENT... But when he goes into throwing few punches in a row, you can still appreciate the technique but know that its quite boring.

[Jedi Vader]

Floyd 130-135.