Boring Perfection

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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

Ending on a KO is always great.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

[QUOTE=Ganstaz003;18079098]

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)?

Well, it depends on what you're calling skills and how fun they can be to watch. If a guy can slip punches for twelve rounds, that's admirable but fun to watch? Maybe if he's slipping punches and landing his own. However, if it's low volume and low action, those who want to see this are in the minority, man. If it's guys who are a big fan of one fighter and not a boxing fan who truly loves watching boxing and a good fight, then they're only saying they like it because their guy won. Most of the time, anyone and I mean anyone can watch a fight and tell you whether it's worth watching or not. Gatti-Ward type fights are never boring for most. The back and forth action along with the edge of your seat feeling of who's going to pull this out, is thrilling. And to say these guys aren't skilled is absurd. They would have never gotten as far as they were without being skilled. Skilled fighters get into fights sometimes. Marquez-Diaz I was a dog fight. Are you saying Marquez wasn't skilled? But I'd rather watch Marquez-Diaz I any day before Marquez-Bradley or Marquez-Mayweather. There's no comparison in terms of action and excitement.

And I understand you didn't mean anything by it. That argument has just been used on here often and has gotten very stale with me. You probably didn't mean anything by it but many posters do. To call anybody on here a casual fan is meant as an insult.

Either way man, we disagree and it's all good. I haven't been on here much lately because frankly I expected GGG-Canelo to be the first middleweight war we've seen in years and of course, it failed to live up to expectations. It had a few moments, but not much overall. As to why, well, we can blame plenty of factors, but the end result is that the fans didn't get much once again.

[Brandon121]

Florian says, perfection is boring since we have a tendency to square measure all obsessional downside solvers. once we see one thing imperfect, our perception desires to work out what's going on — we get curious. On the opposite hand, once one thing is just too irregular or “crappy” we have a tendency to ignore it as moot noise.

[soul_survivor]

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.

I believe a great fighter can still be a great fighter without ever being in a great fight...however, a truly upper tier great must be in great fights and the reality is, they always are. Do you know why? Because they fought other great fighters at their best.

Mayweather could have been in great fights but he never fought a prime Pac, he never fought Marg, he never fought Williams and he avoided a welter Cotto.

Why was Pacquiao in great fights with Barrera, Morales, Marquez and heck, even Cotto? Because he fought them at or near their best.

The examples you mentioned, GGG, Canelo and Ward are not ATG fighters so its irrelevant what they do in the context if this discussion.

Another important point to be remembered is that too few top class fighters actually push themselves beyond simply doing the bare minimum to win. Is it the Mayweather effect? Is it the wya modern scoring awards a guy to literally run, land a couple of taps and be labelled as "slick boxer" whereas historically slick boxers included the likes of Robinson, Ali and Leonard, who were all gritty fighters.

The entire system is soft these days so its not surprising that the vast majority of big fights end up being soft.

Think about it, how many great fights have their been this decade that were ppv or labelled as "big" fights? AJ/Wlad, Khan/Maidana, Bradley/Provodnikov, Pac/JMM 4....how many more can you name that gets the blood racing?

[GMAN SUPREME]

It's worse than that my friend.

I knew YOU would respond as in you are one of the few posters on here who appreciate a great fight.

Where is the passion with boxing fans these days?

So many are dead heads, obsessed with this constant drivel to be undefeated and invincible on boxrec while an utter bore in reality?

Something has gone out of the boxing fan.

This is pathetic.

Not one ounce of passion or substance.

All style and BS.

I long for the wars that fans are dying to see.

I agree. we still got some throw back warriors like francisco and salido and others. I blame gayweather jr and the flom0s for making it all about the win loss record and cherry picking opponents to protect the 0. its a bidzness mentality they'd rather see fighters get overpaid than watch great fights.

[DrHouse579]

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. It's an unpopular stance but I mostly blame us, the fans. Nowadays, and maybe this is the "Mayweather effect," but a fighter who fights his heart out, literally taking years off his life, and puts on entertaining spectacles and loses the fight just isn't rewarded with the paydays and the prestige he would have in previous eras. So, now, fighter's are wondering if it's even worth it.

Chocolatito is a perfect example of this. Here's a guy who was running through his divisions with a fan-friendly style, constantly involved in exchanges and would overwhelm guys with his offense until they broke down. He moves up to test himself and has what any "fight" fan, let alone boxing fan, would deem extremely entertaining scraps against Cuadras and Sor Rungvisai. Then he suffers a brutal KO loss in the rematch to Rungvisai and the fans jump all over him for being a hype-job and say he's finished, etc. And, again, I am somewhat guilty of this myself.

He's just one example, but I feel like the fan-fighter connection enjoyed by some of the greats, hell even the not-so-greats like Arturo Gatti, is not as strong anymore. Gatti had a strong PPV career even after suffering multiple stoppage losses. Adrien Broner is only 28 and has 3 losses to top guys, and it seems like his career is pretty much over.

It might just be a reflection of society, also. This mentality of success as the be-all, end-all pervades sports, and though fans want to see their heroes tested, they also want them to succeed no matter the circumstances. Fans want to vicariously experience the success that eludes us in our own lives. In this sense, fighters become commodities to be consumed, instead of being treated as people with a life outside and after boxing. And, maybe, this is somewhat justified on the fans' side because of how much athletes are being paid these days. However, in this landscape, from a fighter's perspective, it's just more logical for health and financial reasons, to prioritize the "success" and not the "overcoming" part.

As for what "greatness" is, I go by how special a fighter is. I appreciate the absolute grind it must have been for Mayweather (and to a lesser extent Ward) to just stay on top of his game for so long. Staying in shape year-round, going from poverty-level to top 0.0001% and still having the motivation to get up and go to work, never having an off-night. If Mayweather was all about money, he would have lost a long time ago. People such as yourself may be hesitant to call him an ATG because he was never involved in "great" fights, but I would point to one of my all-time favorite movie quotes from a Bronx Tale:

"It don't take much strength to pull a trigger but try getting up every morning day after day and work for a living, let's see him try that, then we'll see who the real tough guy is, the working man is the tough guy, your father's the tough guy!"

EDIT: B4 I get flamed, this quote is an ANALOGY, Floyd is NOT your average working man but he has the work ethic which is the point of the quote.

Now, to me, it seems the only requirements for being an entertaining fighter is to be blessed with a solid chin and have the willingness to fight knowing there's a possibility you will get laid out. No question, this type of courage should be appreciated. But, is having a few of those fights in your career more special or "greater" than eating clean, showing up fight after fight, and winning for 20+ years? I personally do not. There is more than one way to test character, and though the excellence shown in Ward-Gatti, Vlad-Joshua, etc is more OBVIOUS, I do think the sheer discipline and commitment to the sport outside the ring shown by guys like Mayweather merits ATG status, regardless of what you think about his style or personal life.

[GhostofDempsey]

Today's boxing fan is more likely to be a fan of a particular promoter, sanctioning body, network, and even coach, along with their favorite fighter. It really is a strange time in boxing. I've never seen so many so-called fans side up with a promoter...there was a time when all promoters were looked upon with a suspect eye. Welcome to the Mayweather era.

Lets face it, no one will ever be watching a Mayweather's Greatest Hits highlight video, at least not anyone who isn't named Larry. Doubt anyone really wants to sit through another dirty, dull Ward fight either. Klitschko wasn't exactly a highlight reel legend, neither is Hopkins.

Today's fighter is more concerned about preserving that precious zero in the loss column. That in itself has become some sort of mythical title, as if it really means something if you haven't fought top tier opponents at their very best. Smoke and mirrors.

I look at some of the shifts in style that fighters like Thurman have made in order to get that unanimous decision, or how Davis is navigating his career and losing his title on the scale, or Canelo jumping up and down in weight classes to get the big money fights and gaining every possible advantage.

Boxing perfection doesn't exist. It's a three-headed unicorn. The closest boxing has seen to perfection included men who weren't afraid to risk it all, who fought the best at their best, and earned their legendary status in fan-friendly performances. Win, lose or draw, they gave it 100% in the ring.

[Scary]

All Carl Froch's fights are extremely good:

1. Froch vs. Pascal - Balls to the wall, epic shots landed every second. Simply a blast of a fight.

2. Froch vs. Taylor - I'll give you that Taylor gassed, but that was because of the relentlessness of the cobra. Great 14 seconds left of the fight knockout - One for the books.

3 & 4. Both Kessler fight were highly amusing, both fighters not wanting to back down one bit.

5. Froch vs. Groves 1 & 2. The first one, was a devastating fight for Froch, and one where I was sure that he would not rematch the young man. Everything in the world got thrown at Froch with one of the most epic combination ever landed on him in round 5 or 6 by Groves.

A fan favourite and a must see spectacle. Froch was awkward and slow, but damn effective at winning at all costs. The only time he really got outclassed was against the black sheep of SMW.

Froch was the milkman, and the milkman always delivers.

[chrisJS]

It's worse than that my friend.

I knew YOU would respond as in you are one of the few posters on here who appreciate a great fight.

Where is the passion with boxing fans these days?

So many are dead heads, obsessed with this constant drivel to be undefeated and invincible on boxrec while an utter bore in reality?

Something has gone out of the boxing fan.

This is pathetic.

Not one ounce of passion or substance.

All style and BS.

I long for the wars that fans are dying to see.

There's plenty of real fans out there, but on social media and message boards they are drowned out by casuals. I've generally always said those that are least informed and with the limited knowledge have the strongest opinions. I can point the fingers to many on here. They really follow 2-3 fighters they love and 2-3 they hate and that's Boxing for them. By default a Mayweather fan may follow the career of, say, Andre Berto a little bit for example because it props up Floyd's win in their eyes.

Your right in the OP there's a lot of boxrec fans who when they see a name they have never heard of or who aren't familiar with or didn't educate themselves on an era it's straight to boxrec and they will spout off their nonsense in a way that favors their guy or their (ill-informed) opinion.

They often only care about the "0" and will ride their fighter until it goes and then onto the next one. The quality of the fight or actual circumstances of the match doesn't matter. Wilder has a lot of fans here they will go the moment he loses. Ward would have had no fans here had the Kovalev I fight been the correct decision. Floyd's fan base had been tiny had Castillo got the decision (which he should have) or had Oscar got the "W" over him. However, every other unbeaten fighter is an unproven overrated hype job and they will be proven right the moment that fighter loses. You can't lose that way because once your fighters "0" goes you've already moved onto the next unbeaten guy that you've decided you don't hate.

Me? My style is sit back, enjoy the fights, respect the fighters and wish for the best matches at the best times and that the action rocks and that one fight doesn't define an entire fighters career.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I believe a great fighter can still be a great fighter without ever being in a great fight...however, a truly upper tier great must be in great fights and the reality is, they always are. Do you know why? Because they fought other great fighters at their best.

Mayweather could have been in great fights but he never fought a prime Pac, he never fought Marg, he never fought Williams and he avoided a welter Cotto.

Why was Pacquiao in great fights with Barrera, Morales, Marquez and heck, even Cotto? Because he fought them at or near their best.

The examples you mentioned, GGG, Canelo and Ward are not ATG fighters so its irrelevant what they do in the context if this discussion.

Another important point to be remembered is that too few top class fighters actually push themselves beyond simply doing the bare minimum to win. Is it the Mayweather effect? Is it the wya modern scoring awards a guy to literally run, land a couple of taps and be labelled as "slick boxer" whereas historically slick boxers included the likes of Robinson, Ali and Leonard, who were all gritty fighters.

The entire system is soft these days so its not surprising that the vast majority of big fights end up being soft.

Think about it, how many great fights have their been this decade that were ppv or labelled as "big" fights? AJ/Wlad, Khan/Maidana, Bradley/Provodnikov, Pac/JMM 4....how many more can you name that gets the blood racing?

Ah, man, not many at all. I was hyped for GGG-Canelo but it failed for sure. It had a few moments but just not that good. Low energy.

Good post.