Is boxing a mere art form?
Or is it really about one big fight, a war between two combatants?
I say this because some fans would have boxing reduced to a dance routine where an opponent who looks the best in ducking shots get the most applause. Never mind if his offense is lacking, or plays it too safe.
I think that the world's premier fighting sport should be so much more than that. Why should we take the fight out of boxing and relegate it to a mere chess match? People love to watch boxing because it best approximates a war between two contesting entities, with all its drama and excitement. People see boxing not so much for the technical skills of the combatants but HOW they use those skills, how they risk some to give some, and how they deliver telling blows on the other. People obviously didn't come to watch boxers dance (leave that to the pretty dancers), run (leave that to the Olympics), or massage the other guys face and body (leave that to the local spa). They came here for the blood and guts, balls-to-the-wall confrontations that they need to witness first-hand, which boxing inherently promises to give. That's why they pay hard-earned money to watch a fight. Anything less than that is a robbery, and comes up short of the valid expectations of a paying fan.
Agree?
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
I think boxing reaches people on a lot of different levels. Generally like any sport or interest the more someone is acquainted with it the more their interest in and appreciation of it's more subtle finer points will be stimulated.
For a very casual fan probably only the most blood and guts style brutal slugfests are entertaining but as someone's knowledge of and interest in all the technical naunces develops they will appreciate things like defensive strategies, foot positionings and stances.
I'm only an arm chair fan, no actual boxing experience but I'm a fairly obsessive fan and can really enjoy a good tactical fight. I'm also a keen chess player and used to love watching live chess on the rare occaisions it was televised, I guess I just enjoy seeing a strategy get implemented.
But certainly at the end of the day boxing is a contact sport so will only ever be as exciting as the amount of contact action in the ring allows.
Personally I like the way boxing is right now. We have plenty of bangers and brawlers, lots of fast paced slick tactictians and the more elusive defensively minded fighters.
I like watching all of them. The only style I really don't appreciate is excessive holding and mauling.
Guys like Hatton, Ruiz, Raheem and Cornelius Bundrage kind of frustrate me because they are always spoiling the action and turn fights into a stop start affair. To me there's no artistry in that, I like fights to be fluid and free running. But I do love to see strategies in fights and enjoy watching guys engaging in a mental strategic struggle over the course of many rounds.
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Boxing is about using strategy, technique, speed and power to land the most effective punches against the opposing boxer to knock him/her out. Basically, to WIN the fight. It doesn't matter how the fight is fought (as long as there ain't any rules broken), it's about WINNING.
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I think boxing reaches people on a lot of different levels. Generally like any sport or interest the more someone is acquainted with it the more their interest in and appreciation of it's more subtle finer points will be stimulated.
For a very casual fan probably only the most blood and guts style brutal slugfests are entertaining but as someone's knowledge of and interest in all the technical naunces develops they will appreciate things like defensive strategies, foot positionings and stances.
I'm only an arm chair fan, no actual boxing experience but I'm a fairly obsessive fan and can really enjoy a good tactical fight. I'm also a keen chess player and used to love watching live chess on the rare occaisions it was televised, I guess I just enjoy seeing a strategy get implemented.
But certainly at the end of the day boxing is a contact sport so will only ever be as exciting as the amount of contact action in the ring allows.
Personally I like the way boxing is right now. We have plenty of bangers and brawlers, lots of fast paced slick tactictians and the more elusive defensively minded fighters.
I like watching all of them. The only style I really don't appreciate is excessive holding and mauling.
Guys like Hatton, Ruiz, Raheem and Cornelius Bundrage kind of frustrate me because they are always spoiling the action and turn fights into a stop start affair. To me there's no artistry in that, I like fights to be fluid and free running. But I do love to see strategies in fights and enjoy watching guys engaging in a mental strategic struggle over the course of many rounds.
I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed. For example, taking risks is a virtue by all means, yet is sorely lacking in your average technical fight. In fact, in some fights involving the most technical fihgters there is absolutely no risk involved. This is a big no-no in a sport that seeks mainstream acceptance. The "greater risk, greater glory" adage is applicable to all sports and that is why Michael Jordan propelled not only himself but his sport to greater heights. Instead of going for the easy deuce via jump shot he drives through three defenders for a spectacular dunk. Or instead of driving to the basket for a tie he goes for a risk-filled three point shot. Conversely, the reason why tennis got boring in the Sampras era was because Sampras predictably beat all his opponents with his power serves. Put Agassi in his place and the sport would've flourished, as Tiger did with golf.
Moreover, there is less drama in a highly technical fight, and this is what the sport needs to get more fans. I mean, boxing should be the most dramatic sport in the world because it features two men out to unleash their most primal instincts on each other and yet, a sport where men bounce balls like idiots with the aim of shooting it in a basket without the least bit of physical contact excites the casual sports fan even more than the premier fight sport. There is something terribly wrong about this.
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I think boxing reaches people on a lot of different levels. Generally like any sport or interest the more someone is acquainted with it the more their interest in and appreciation of it's more subtle finer points will be stimulated.
For a very casual fan probably only the most blood and guts style brutal slugfests are entertaining but as someone's knowledge of and interest in all the technical naunces develops they will appreciate things like defensive strategies, foot positionings and stances.
I'm only an arm chair fan, no actual boxing experience but I'm a fairly obsessive fan and can really enjoy a good tactical fight. I'm also a keen chess player and used to love watching live chess on the rare occaisions it was televised, I guess I just enjoy seeing a strategy get implemented.
But certainly at the end of the day boxing is a contact sport so will only ever be as exciting as the amount of contact action in the ring allows.
Personally I like the way boxing is right now. We have plenty of bangers and brawlers, lots of fast paced slick tactictians and the more elusive defensively minded fighters.
I like watching all of them. The only style I really don't appreciate is excessive holding and mauling.
Guys like Hatton, Ruiz, Raheem and Cornelius Bundrage kind of frustrate me because they are always spoiling the action and turn fights into a stop start affair. To me there's no artistry in that, I like fights to be fluid and free running. But I do love to see strategies in fights and enjoy watching guys engaging in a mental strategic struggle over the course of many rounds.
I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed. For example, taking risks is a virtue by all means, yet is sorely lacking in your average technical fight. In fact, in some fights involving the most technical fihgters there is absolutely no risk involved. This is a big no-no in a sport that seeks mainstream acceptance. The "greater risk, greater glory" adage is applicable to all sports and that is why Michael Jordan propelled not only himself but his sport to greater heights. Instead of going for the easy deuce via jump shot he drives through three defenders for a spectacular dunk. Or instead of driving to the basket for a tie he goes for a risk-filled three point shot. Conversely, the reason why tennis got boring in the Sampras era was because Sampras predictably beat all his opponents with his power serves. Put Agassi in his place and the sport would've flourished, as Tiger did with golf.
Moreover, there is less drama in a highly technical fight, and this is what the sport needs to get more fans. I mean, boxing should be the most dramatic sport in the world because it features two men out to unleash their most primal instincts on each other and yet, a sport where men bounce balls like idiots with the aim of shooting it in a basket without the least bit of physical contact excites the casual sports fan even more than the premier fight sport. There is something terribly wrong about this.
I'll rep you both for great posting... I disagree on your comments about basketball as I feel it is a sport which provides an incredible display of athleticism. I've even heard that boxing and basketball require very similar skillsets and physical attributes. Im way too hung over to really debate the issue, but I think one of the great things about boxing is that different styles and physical skills are on display moreso than perhaps any other sport. I think part of being a true boxing fan is being able to appreciate all different styles, and that individuals do what provides them with their best chance of winning. Seeing two fighters enter the ring with polar opposite strengths and therefore gameplans to win, makes the sport that much more intruiging. Also, I think you are wrong to compare a technical fight having almost no risk, to Michael Jordan taking a "risk" by playing basketball aggressivly... If Michael Jordan drives through a bunch of defenders to dunk the ball, he might catch an elbow, finger to the eye, he might get knocked off balance and hit the floor, having to leave the game. He's not about to get knocked on his ass by a punch and than be expected to get up and keep playing.
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I think boxing reaches people on a lot of different levels. Generally like any sport or interest the more someone is acquainted with it the more their interest in and appreciation of it's more subtle finer points will be stimulated.
For a very casual fan probably only the most blood and guts style brutal slugfests are entertaining but as someone's knowledge of and interest in all the technical naunces develops they will appreciate things like defensive strategies, foot positionings and stances.
I'm only an arm chair fan, no actual boxing experience but I'm a fairly obsessive fan and can really enjoy a good tactical fight. I'm also a keen chess player and used to love watching live chess on the rare occaisions it was televised, I guess I just enjoy seeing a strategy get implemented.
But certainly at the end of the day boxing is a contact sport so will only ever be as exciting as the amount of contact action in the ring allows.
Personally I like the way boxing is right now. We have plenty of bangers and brawlers, lots of fast paced slick tactictians and the more elusive defensively minded fighters.
I like watching all of them. The only style I really don't appreciate is excessive holding and mauling.
Guys like Hatton, Ruiz, Raheem and Cornelius Bundrage kind of frustrate me because they are always spoiling the action and turn fights into a stop start affair. To me there's no artistry in that, I like fights to be fluid and free running. But I do love to see strategies in fights and enjoy watching guys engaging in a mental strategic struggle over the course of many rounds.
I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed. For example, taking risks is a virtue by all means, yet is sorely lacking in your average technical fight. In fact, in some fights involving the most technical fihgters there is absolutely no risk involved. This is a big no-no in a sport that seeks mainstream acceptance. The "greater risk, greater glory" adage is applicable to all sports and that is why Michael Jordan propelled not only himself but his sport to greater heights. Instead of going for the easy deuce via jump shot he drives through three defenders for a spectacular dunk. Or instead of driving to the basket for a tie he goes for a risk-filled three point shot. Conversely, the reason why tennis got boring in the Sampras era was because Sampras predictably beat all his opponents with his power serves. Put Agassi in his place and the sport would've flourished, as Tiger did with golf.
Moreover, there is less drama in a highly technical fight, and this is what the sport needs to get more fans. I mean, boxing should be the most dramatic sport in the world because it features two men out to unleash their most primal instincts on each other and yet, a sport where men bounce balls like idiots with the aim of shooting it in a basket without the least bit of physical contact excites the casual sports fan even more than the premier fight sport. There is something terribly wrong about this.
I do agree with you completely that boxing is very much a specator sport and so that for the good of the game we need to have a fair share of fast action crowd friendly fights. I also think we are getting our share of those fights.
But boxing isn't just about brawling, it is very much an art like all martial arts and for people heavily involved in the sport it can be delightful to see a master boxer showcasing his skills, including his defensive skills.
I certainly wouldn't want every fighter to fight like Cory Spinks, Floyd Mayweather or Ivan Calderon but I do love watching all of them. I'll readily agree that the Spinks Taylor fight was a stinker as Spinks seemed to completely ignore the primary goal of boxing which was to make contact with your opponet but for the most part these fighters bring some artistry and elegance to the brutal sport of boxing.
I would hate it if every boxer was a blood and guts type, don't get me wrong I love those guys as well but boxing is all about styles and strategy.
Boxing in many ways is analagous to chess but also to life itself. There is a predator and a prey, an enemy and the task is to either eat your opponent or avoid being eaten.
One of the beauties of chess is that there are countless different strategies of defence and attack, and in nature the sheer variety and ingenuity of animals to hunt for prey or to avoid being prey are things that make us truly marvel.
I want my boxing to be like that. There is one common goal, to defeat your opponent whilst not being defeated yourself but I want to see boxers approach that goal in as many different ways as possible.
That's what makes the sport great, the variety, the different styles, the ingenuity of it all, built on over a 100 years of trial and error.
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
I think boxing reaches people on a lot of different levels. Generally like any sport or interest the more someone is acquainted with it the more their interest in and appreciation of it's more subtle finer points will be stimulated.
For a very casual fan probably only the most blood and guts style brutal slugfests are entertaining but as someone's knowledge of and interest in all the technical naunces develops they will appreciate things like defensive strategies, foot positionings and stances.
I'm only an arm chair fan, no actual boxing experience but I'm a fairly obsessive fan and can really enjoy a good tactical fight. I'm also a keen chess player and used to love watching live chess on the rare occaisions it was televised, I guess I just enjoy seeing a strategy get implemented.
But certainly at the end of the day boxing is a contact sport so will only ever be as exciting as the amount of contact action in the ring allows.
Personally I like the way boxing is right now. We have plenty of bangers and brawlers, lots of fast paced slick tactictians and the more elusive defensively minded fighters.
I like watching all of them. The only style I really don't appreciate is excessive holding and mauling.
Guys like Hatton, Ruiz, Raheem and Cornelius Bundrage kind of frustrate me because they are always spoiling the action and turn fights into a stop start affair. To me there's no artistry in that, I like fights to be fluid and free running. But I do love to see strategies in fights and enjoy watching guys engaging in a mental strategic struggle over the course of many rounds.
I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed. For example, taking risks is a virtue by all means, yet is sorely lacking in your average technical fight. In fact, in some fights involving the most technical fihgters there is absolutely no risk involved. This is a big no-no in a sport that seeks mainstream acceptance. The "greater risk, greater glory" adage is applicable to all sports and that is why Michael Jordan propelled not only himself but his sport to greater heights. Instead of going for the easy deuce via jump shot he drives through three defenders for a spectacular dunk. Or instead of driving to the basket for a tie he goes for a risk-filled three point shot. Conversely, the reason why tennis got boring in the Sampras era was because Sampras predictably beat all his opponents with his power serves. Put Agassi in his place and the sport would've flourished, as Tiger did with golf.
Moreover, there is less drama in a highly technical fight, and this is what the sport needs to get more fans. I mean, boxing should be the most dramatic sport in the world because it features two men out to unleash their most primal instincts on each other and yet, a sport where men bounce balls like idiots with the aim of shooting it in a basket without the least bit of physical contact excites the casual sports fan even more than the premier fight sport. There is something terribly wrong about this.
Are you saying the the casual fan DOESN'T prefer blood and guts wars or are you saying it's wrong that they do? It's always going to be hard for a casual fan to appreciate a technical, tactical fight because they will never see the subtle things that make those fights interesting.
You don't need to be an expert in baseball to appreciate a homerun, but you need to be an educated fan to appreciated a 2-1 game. You need to be a hockey expert to enjoy a game where one team plays the neutral zone trap well, but a casual fan can enjoy goals and fights. Casual basketball fans want long threes and dunks, and they could care less about great defense and rebounding.
It breaks down to a level of understanding. Back when boxing was more mainstream, your average joe understood some of the technical aspects of boxing much more than they do now, but now you have people who get it get it and people who don't, and to get it, you need to spend a lot of time watching boxing or you need to have done some of it yourself, and I don't mean cardio-kickboxing.
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Also another point to make is that every boxer has different physical attributes.
If all you want is a blood and guts brawl and every fight is a slugfest then actual boxing ability doesn't matter so much. Basically the bigger, stronger guy with the best physical attributes will always win.
But boxing isn't about that. I want to see a smaller, lighter punching man, with a relatively unimpressive physique still take on and win against a bigger, meaner, stronger opponent by using his superior ring craft and speed.
Take the Calderon Cazares fight for example. Ivan Calderon was 7 inches shorter and has no power to his shots, but using his slick, fast elusive style he was able to beat the much bigger man.
That is true boxing to me, Calderon was using his pugilistic skills to defeat an opponent who on paper had every advantage.
Isn't that what the very essence of martial arts is about?
Re: Is boxing a mere art form?
Boxers are not some primitive rock slinging cro-mags.The sport is every bit,even more so a mental contest as it is Physical and each fighter looks to exploit the others deficiencies as well as imposing his or her Strengths & talents.There is inherent risk in every aspect regardless of skill set,fighting style or level of career.It is far more than two guys punching one another in the face and seeing who has the biggest shaft.EVERY boxer takes many risk's!
If a stylistic boxer uses his skills to Break down another capable Boxer it is really a thing of beauty.Some are beating mentally before they feel the pain.The shifts in footwork,The positioning and punch selection when they are combined are as much a skill as ANY other sport out there.Take a Slugger also,The willingness to disregard his self doubt and the belief within that they can walk down there opponent and persevere with power and determination is aww inspiring when you see it.Its not always so ying or yang,Thats the great aspect,For myself anyway.The fight Is a continuum from what might be a Tepid beginning with sizing up to a gradual escalation as It unfolds.Sometimes you get an explosive one punch blowout or a 12 round staring contest.....At times you get both.
I do not think the struggle of Boxing in the media can be tied to Individual fighting styles.Boxing has shot itself in the feet with Bad Decisions,lacking & corrupt Commissions, sanctioning bodies with no Intersest in the athletes but more so in the revenue they generate and the shiny trinkets they flaunt.If it comes down to Defensive or "Not TV friendly" fighters as a problem The Networks will sort it out as they try to Appeal to certain Demographics.There is a method to the madness at work and alot of times boxing is a theater of controlled chaos.
