Boring Perfection

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Wow this DCAF don't know shiet about boxing, Andre Ward is the greatest to lace them up and I see beyond yo white lies and y'all just wanna see slick ATG futue HOF best of all time Ward lose, SMFH!!

[g27region]

Tastes are different, I don't like Gatti/Ward kind of fights, I find them boring, a fight has to have a clear winner for me to enjoy it. Even if it's back and forth action it should be ended with KO. Crawford/Gamboa is my personal classic, I've enjoyed it way more than Klitschko/Joshua or Salido/Vargas. Frampton/LSC....when the fight is close and it went 12 I can't help but feel sorry for the guy who lost....The winner should be clear so nobody can bitch about it later

[deadlywill]

I agree with OP. Few things have ruined boxing for me. The boxers aren't active enough. They aren't making the right fights happen. They are taking too long to make them happen, in my view, mostly on purpose. Overbearing promoters are everywhere. Incredibly poor scoring by judges. Inconsistent refereeing. The fact that there are 26 champions in every division - every ****er that enters the ring has some type of belt.

"...and introducing in the red corner - the previously undefeated, interim, jade, diamond, copper oxide, super southern hemisphere, undisputed number 3 ranked challenger...." Give me a ****en break.
Corruption as per usual - a bigger deal these days as sports betting companies worldwide have flourished. The "boxing stars" seem to me to be a bunch of ****en first class dead****s eg Broner, Mayweather, Fury etc etc. Big mouths - no heart.
Fighters not making weight in their respective divisions or organising catchweight fight clauses. Weighing in on weight and fighting at two weight divisions heavier the next day.

I could go on. But mostly there is a lack of good old wars going on.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Great point, sir.

I'll define my entertainment.

My entertainment stems from fights- not so much boxing.

I've come to realize that I am a fight fan- not a boxing fan.

By this, I mean, when to guys actively pursue one another in a quest to prove dominance in an aggressive fashion.

For me, guys like Gatti and Ward do this. The most skillful? No. But blood and guts warriors keep me enthralled the whole time on watching them years after what they did in the ring. I'm also a reader of great novels, but I only re-read the great ones. I also only rewatch the great fights.

My point being, I want and long for the fights that have crowds on their feet.

Excellent skills and dominance are impressive.

I just don't find them as entertaining as two warriors going after each other with everything they have and leaving it all in the ring.

Based on the description, I have to state that you are a 'casual' fan. I define a casual fan as someone who only enjoys specific aspects of boxing and dislikes other aspects whilst a hardcore fan enjoys all aspects of boxing (legal stuff), even if they might have slight preference of specific things over other things.

Perhaps, boxing is not the sport for you to be involved with TOO MUCH as a fan. Perhaps you're better off watching other sports where there are more 'fights' (exchanging of punches and brawling) instead of boxing (punching effectively without getting punched effectively)?

I am a hardcore fan because I enjoy every aspect of boxing that is legal, although I prefer specific aspects of boxing more than other aspects. Such as I usually enjoy a a athletic + technician hybrid like a Lomachenko or Mayweather over a pure technician like Juan Manuel Marquez for example. However, I still enjoy watching Marquez.

If a boxer had the ability to not get hit at all or get hit very little whilst being able to KO nearly all his opponents inside 12 rounds, wouldn't you find that entertaining / enjoyable? Or would you rather that the boxer abandon his skill and purposely get hit for the sake of it, for your entertainment?

[deadlywill]

Or would you rather that the boxer abandon his skill and purposely get hit for the sake of it, for your entertainment?

Tim Bradley v Ruslan Provodnikov was great entertainment...

[Tony Trick-Pony]

[QUOTE=Ganstaz003;18077642]Based on the description, I have to state that you are a 'casual' fan. I define a casual fan as someone who only enjoys specific aspects of boxing and dislikes other aspects whilst a hardcore fan enjoys all aspects of boxing (legal stuff), even if they might have slight preference of specific things over other things.

Perhaps, boxing is not the sport for you to be involved with TOO MUCH as a fan. Perhaps you're better off watching other sports where there are more 'fights' (exchanging of punches and brawling) instead of boxing (punching effectively without getting punched effectively)?

I am a hardcore fan because I enjoy every aspect of boxing that is legal, although I prefer specific aspects of boxing more than other aspects. Such as I usually enjoy a a athletic + technician hybrid like a Lomachenko or Mayweather over a pure technician like Juan Manuel Marquez for example. However, I still enjoy watching Marquez.

If a boxer had the ability to not get hit at all or get hit very little whilst being able to KO nearly all his opponents inside 12 rounds, wouldn't you find that entertaining / enjoyable? Or would you rather that the boxer abandon his skill and purposely get hit for the sake of it, for your entertainment?[/QUOTE]

I've seen this argument time and time again. I have to say that no one in their right mind would ever expect a person to do this. I don't know why so many jump onto this argument, assuming the person who wants to see a great fight is a moron. Of course I don't expect them to abandon their skill. Why in the hell would I expect them to do that?

To the point, I prefer exchanges and action and no. That does not make me a casual fan. It makes me a fight fan. The casual fan thing gets thrown around to insinuate I would know less about boxing than you self-proclaimed hardcore fans, which is an elitist BS mentality. This is not a competition to see who's a bigger fan for God's sake.

Do I find it entertaining for one guy to pummel the other while not getting touched? Not really. Where's the competition? You sound like a bully fan where your guy has all the advantages and thrashes his opponents into nothing in one-sided beatings. Where is the entertainment there? You might as well watch a bull fight.

In closing the boxer IS THERE FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT. Why do fighters fight? To make money. How do you make money? Fill the arenas. Carmen Basilio filled arenas and often got in exchanges and was involved in tough fights. So did Morales. So did Barrera. So did Gatti. I think this idea of perfection is strange. Don't you want to see a fighter tested right down to the bone? If not, what was the point?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Tim Bradley v Ruslan Provodnikov was great entertainment...

One for the ages.

I've seen it too many times to count.

I sure miss those guys.

Both of them brought a real fight into the ring every time.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I agree with OP. Few things have ruined boxing for me. The boxers aren't active enough. They aren't making the right fights happen. They are taking too long to make them happen, in my view, mostly on purpose. Overbearing promoters are everywhere. Incredibly poor scoring by judges. Inconsistent refereeing. The fact that there are 26 champions in every division - every ****er that enters the ring has some type of belt.

"...and introducing in the red corner - the previously undefeated, interim, jade, diamond, copper oxide, super southern hemisphere, undisputed number 3 ranked challenger...." Give me a ****en break.
Corruption as per usual - a bigger deal these days as sports betting companies worldwide have flourished. The "boxing stars" seem to me to be a bunch of ****en first class dead****s eg Broner, Mayweather, Fury etc etc. Big mouths - no heart.
Fighters not making weight in their respective divisions or organising catchweight fight clauses. Weighing in on weight and fighting at two weight divisions heavier the next day.

I could go on. But mostly there is a lack of good old wars going on.

So true, man.

Very well said.

Boxing always has warriors but they tend to get **** on which makes little sense. They're the ones who actually deserve the massive paydays.

And yeah. The belt thing is beyond ridiculous. There are so many that none of them mean much anymore. With one champion, you weed out so many chumps and pretenders. When everyone has a participation belt, the chumpions abound, holding their little trinkets like they did something. Quite sad.

[Madison Boxing]

Talent and skill and accomplishment is all great but what can you really say about a fighter who is never involved in a great fight?

Last November, Ward and Kovalev fought a close fight, but would you really call it great?

Canelo-GGG was competitive, but great?

Hagler-Hearns was great. Duran-Barkley was great. The Thrilla in Manila was great. Any even causal fan would be impressed with these fights.

Yet, most of the so called p4p guys nowadays have never been in such fights. I mean, Lomachenko is a great fighter but his fights aren't balls to the wall great back and forth fights. Terence Crawford's fight with Gamboa was competitive but once again, I wouldn't call it great.

One great fight this year I believe has been Joshua-Klitschko. They will both be remembered for that one.

However, what will so many of these other fighters be remembered for? What great back and forth high action fight was Roy Jones ever in? Mayweather's fights with Castillo and Maidana were close and competitive but nothing like a Barrera-Morales or a Gatti-Ward. Bowe-Holyfield I was a truly great heavyweight fight even if Bowe wasn't a great heavyweight. Holyfield definitely left part of himself in the ring that night and fans are still grateful as they should be.

I've heard it said that an unbeaten fighter just hasn't fought the right fighter yet. This could be true. How many ATGs have retired unbeaten and even the ones who did, how truly unbeaten were they?

In closing, fighters that go through these kinds of fights deserve much higher praise in my opinion than guys who had a lot of talent but are never in these. After all, many consider Sugar Ray Robinson the best of all time and he did have these types of fights with LaMotta, Basilio and Fullmer. For the ones that don't and end on sterling records with lots of belts in their homes, it may be impressive. It may inspire a lot of admiration but one thing's for sure. It's sure as hell boring.

quality post right there ^

[Mr Objecitivity]

[QUOTE=anthonydavid11;18078830]

Based on the description, I have to state that you are a 'casual' fan. I define a casual fan as someone who only enjoys specific aspects of boxing and dislikes other aspects whilst a hardcore fan enjoys all aspects of boxing (legal stuff), even if they might have slight preference of specific things over other things.

Perhaps, boxing is not the sport for you to be involved with TOO MUCH as a fan. Perhaps you're better off watching other sports where there are more 'fights' (exchanging of punches and brawling) instead of boxing (punching effectively without getting punched effectively)?

I am a hardcore fan because I enjoy every aspect of boxing that is legal, although I prefer specific aspects of boxing more than other aspects. Such as I usually enjoy a a athletic + technician hybrid like a Lomachenko or Mayweather over a pure technician like Juan Manuel Marquez for example. However, I still enjoy watching Marquez.

If a boxer had the ability to not get hit at all or get hit very little whilst being able to KO nearly all his opponents inside 12 rounds, wouldn't you find that entertaining / enjoyable? Or would you rather that the boxer abandon his skill and purposely get hit for the sake of it, for your entertainment?[/QUOTE]

I've seen this argument time and time again. I have to say that no one in their right mind would ever expect a person to do this. I don't know why so many jump onto this argument, assuming the person who wants to see a great fight is a moron. Of course I don't expect them to abandon their skill. Why in the hell would I expect them to do that?

To the point, I prefer exchanges and action and no. That does not make me a casual fan. It makes me a fight fan. The casual fan thing gets thrown around to insinuate I would know less about boxing than you self-proclaimed hardcore fans, which is an elitist BS mentality. This is not a competition to see who's a bigger fan for God's sake.

Do I find it entertaining for one guy to pummel the other while not getting touched? Not really. Where's the competition? You sound like a bully fan where your guy has all the advantages and thrashes his opponents into nothing in one-sided beatings. Where is the entertainment there? You might as well watch a bull fight.

In closing the boxer IS THERE FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT. Why do fighters fight? To make money. How do you make money? Fill the arenas. Carmen Basilio filled arenas and often got in exchanges and was involved in tough fights. So did Morales. So did Barrera. So did Gatti. I think this idea of perfection is strange. Don't you want to see a fighter tested right down to the bone? If not, what was the point?

I asked you whether skillful boxers (boxers that can win fights comprehensively, by KO or by decision without getting hit much in return) should abandon their skills because I wanted to know if you'd find them more entertaining if they did this? I didn't ask you whether you'd expect them to do it. I asked you would you LIKE / WANT them to do it. There's a difference!

Not sure how you inferred that I was implying someone who wants to see a 'great' fight is a moron. I didn't claim any such thing.

Okay, so by 'exchanges' and 'action', do you mean boxers hitting each other whilst getting hit at the same time?

When I called you a 'casual' fan, it wasn't intended as a derogatory term. It's just simply a word I use to describe fans of any sport. Not sure why you took offense by it. A casual fan of any sport is someone I define as a fan that doesn't like everything of a specific sport. So I myself am a 'casual' fan of many sports. I am a casual tennis fan because I don't enjoy every aspect of tennis. I am a casual cricket fan because I don't enjoy every aspect of that sport and so forth so on. However, boxing is one of the only sports that I am a hardcore fan of because I absolutely enjoy every aspect of boxing. So if you don't enjoy every aspect of boxing, then you are a casual fan / not a hardcore fan (this isn't intended as an offense towards you).

What you find 'entertaining' is your personal opinion. Something you find entertaining may be something others don't find entertaining.

Furthermore, two guys trading punches is something that requires very little to no boxing skills. Whilst the ability to destroy opponents without getting hit much takes actual skills. Now explain to me why you find something that takes less skill, more entertaining whilst something that takes more skill, you find less entertaining if you don't mind please. As in, what exactly is the reason? Would you rather watch a person doing something nobody else in the planet can do (something skillful) or something that every idiot in the street can do (something that requires very little skill)?