Thread: would boxing be less interesting if

would boxing be less interesting if it wasnt bent?

there seems to be more bent descisions nowadays to me than ever before (could be wrong just seems that way)

i dont remember in the past that boxers and people in boxing being so open about the fact that they are chosing directions because of money (again i could be wrong i just dont remember it that way)

so anyway, are these bad descisions aways bad for boxing?

for example (and please lets find other examples too) if marquez would have won (and i havent seen the fight but it seems by most peoples reactions that he should have) would the situation now be as interesting as it is?

would we still have a mega fight to look forward to? is there a mega fight still to look forward to?

a 38 year old marquez schools you, a 35 year old floyds gonna eat you, and i despise floyd but thats the truth

I will never buy a Pac fight again, not interested in him at all, I hope he retires from boxing and becomes a politician it suits him.

Boxing has always been corrupt. It is probably less corrupt now than it used to be.

I don't know myself, but I've heard many stories back in the day of fights being fixed and gloves getting loaded.

Things like this are not at all interesting.
Things like this are a disgrace and will eventually finish the 'sport' off.
It is ceasing to be a sport in fact.

Originally Posted by Andre

I will never buy a Pac fight again, not interested in him at all, I hope he retires from boxing and becomes a politician it suits him.

Wait. Have you been buying boxing fights all this time? Why not go to bars or a friend's?

Never a dull week in boxing, in the last few we have had Dawson v Hopkins
now JMM v Pacman.
Do i love this sport it's great