15 Most Exciting Warriors of the Ring

[Panamaniac]

Violence in boxing is only the means to end not the end in and of itself. I watch boxing to see the skill, the tactics, the technique of the fighters as well as the action and the exchanges. The violence of the means is only incidental to me. I would rather see a fight like Leonard-Duran I that has 15 rounds of torrid action but no knockout (or even a knockdown) than a war like Hagler-Hearns that goes three rounds and ends with a brutal knockout. I'd also rather see a technical affair like Leonard-Benitez over a quicky like Hagler-Hearns.

Poet

It's fascinating how two people can look at the same object with diametrically opposite points of view. I see the violence in boxing as the primary objective (end). I see the skills, tactics and techniques as means to achieving said objective, which to me are merely incidental. I was as thrilled by Leonard-Duran I as the next guy, but I place a higher premium on the likes of what unfolds below.

[vbtube]5s--I8BsgDU[/vbtube]

[vbtube]2FOSXQFF-V0[/vbtube]

[vbtube]vrMQJ4Z-4-c[/vbtube]

[jabsRstiff]

Meant Graham, yes. And I had him well ahead at the time of the KO. That's my least favorite part of the sport: The fact that a fighter who is being outclassed can end the fight with one well-placed shot.

Just don't consider knockouts exciting. If it were up to me, every fight would go to the judges.

You are an intelligent guy and I usually agree with and enjoy what you have to say....but that is just ridiculous!

I take it you absolutely love the turn Olympic boxing as taken over the past few decades? They practically discourage fighters from hurting each other. Lots and lots of fencing going on and lots of work for judges to do.

You liked that Winky Wright never had another gear? You enjoyed that he just kept repeating the same thing at the same tempo? Had he stepped on the gas and mixed his stuff up with some mustard.....he would probably have scored more stoppages and KOs, which would result in him being a less exciting and special fighter in your eyes?

[StarshipTrooper]

It's fascinating how two people can look at the same object with diametrically opposite points of view. I see the violence in boxing as the primary objective (end). I see the skills, tactics and techniques as means to achieving said objective, which to me are merely incidental. I was as thrilled by Leonard-Duran I as the next guy, but I place a higher premium on the likes of what unfolds below.

[vbtube]5s--I8BsgDU[/vbtube]

[vbtube]2FOSXQFF-V0[/vbtube]

[vbtube]vrMQJ4Z-4-c[/vbtube]

Now bear in mind I don't object to knockouts per se. What I object to are quick knockouts. I want a fight to get at least to the halfway mark otherwise I feel like I've wasted my time. Part of this the fact that I don't like blowouts: I want to see a very competitive fight with both parties showing a high degree of skill and resilience, not a miss-match. I don't enjoy blowouts in any of the sports I watch.

Poet

[kendom]

For the record I found Leonard- Duran I more exciting than Hagler Hearns, I like sustained action throughout a fight, and would prefer 15 rounds of action (Leonard-Duran I) to a couple or so rounds of frenzied fighting (Hagler-Hearns) even if it does end up n a knockout. Hence my top three all time favourite fights:
1) Leonard-Duran I
2) Qawi-Holyfield I
3) Ali- Frazier I

[Panamaniac]

Most decision victories are extremely conclusive.

A knockout, on the other hand, doesn't always mean that the better boxer won.

McClellan was thoroughly out-boxing Jackson when Jackson landed the big right hand.

Did Jackson win the fight? Of course. Did he deserve to? Absolutely. But was he necessarily the better boxer? Did he out-box his opponent? No, not really.


The object of boxing is to win the fight... of course, that involves punching the opponent, which is certainly violent. But fights are also scored on the principles of defense: Slipping a punch, which is non-violent, should be rewarded as much as the violent act of landing one.

Yes, most (at least 51% qualifies) are conclusive, but I would reserve the adjective (extremely) for all KO's in concept.*

A KO always means the better man won that particular fight, whether or not he had an inferior record to his opponent or was trailing on all scorecards. That's the beauty of boxing rules, no matter how much you may be trailing in a fight, you have a puncher's chance of winning via the KO. If you won millions in the lottery, you're no less a millionaire that the fellow who earned it through blood, sweat and tears.

I freely concede that I may not know what the criteria for scoring a fight is, but I've never seen a Compu-box scorecard based on defensive tactics.




*The qualifier above is based on the possibility of referee error (Jersey Joe Walcot, not picking up the correct count from the timekeeper) or haste (stopping the fight too soon, e.g. Richard Steele)

[IronDanHamza]

Hard to say.

Like Sbleeder beautifully put it, "exciting" is 100% subjective.

The most exciting fighter that I've ever seen is probably Alexis Arguello. He's just everything I want to see when I watch a fight. Skills, power, heart, guts, everything.

[jabsRstiff]

Poet and SBleeder....

Did you guys find the 160-168lb Roy Jones exciting?

His fights weren't very competitive at that stage and most ended in a KO.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet and SBleeder....

Did you guys find the 160-168lb Roy Jones exciting?

His fights weren't very competitive at that stage and most ended in a KO.

Not particularly. Jones was a great great fighter, I like him, but I never found his fights particularly compelling precisely because they were usually blowouts.

Poet

[jabsRstiff]

Not particularly. Jones was a great great fighter, I like him, but I never found his fights particularly compelling precisely because they were usually blowouts.

Poet

So do you believe a fighter cannot be exciting on his own? He needs the right foe, and he needs that foe to give him trouble for it/him to be exciting? Does that mean for a fighter to be exciting he cannot be overly dominant?

[StarshipTrooper]

So do you believe a fighter cannot be exciting on his own? He needs the right foe, and he needs that foe to give him trouble for it/him to be exciting? Does that mean for a fighter to be exciting he cannot be overly dominant?

When I sit down to watch boxing my first priority is seeing a good fight. That means it needs to be competitive. Now you can have an exciting fight between two dominant fighters (ie Ali-Frazier I, Leonard-Duran I ect.), you just can't have an exciting fight between a dominant fighter and an overmatched opponent.

Bottom line, a great fight is exciting; this or that fighter isn't. There's plenty of fighters over the years that I've liked, but I can't say there's been any I get overly excited over for their own sake or that stir any real passion in me. There's been lots of matchups I've gotten excited over though.

Poet