are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-18-2014, 07:56 PM
Silkeyjoe

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

Originally Posted by beenKOed

All I can go by is what I like, I can appreciate a Rigondeaux and a Ward, but I don't feel the excitement building for one of their fights the way it does when Cotto, Maidana, and Manny fight, to name a few.
My personal hell would be watching Rigondeaux fight himself forever. Call me ignorant, and a barbarian but I know what I like.

Or a Hopkins v Ward match.

I love watching Rigo. I dont understand all the negativity he gets
06-18-2014, 08:38 PM
ross

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross

You may not realise the difference between amateur and professional boxing.

Amateur is a sport.

Professional is a business.

Professional boxing was created to make money out of fighters. Promoters need personalities and excitment that fans want to see to help sell fights. If your fighter is bland and offers no excitiment you are going to struggle to sell tickets.

Have you paid to travel and watch Andre Ward fight? Have you paid to go and watch any other fighters?

so professional sports arent actually sports?

Well if you really scrutinised proffesional boxing and looked at the scoring and how a crowd cheering or an aggressive fighter, or even a promoter offering hospitality can influence the scoring. Basically, the scores you see are however the judges want to iterperet what they are seeing. Only a winner or a loser of each round.

Now compare that to the sport of amateur boxings scoring system. Counting how many scoring punches land with force on the target area, just like fencing, you jave something to base a score on that cant be disputed.

Just like football has goals, you have something concrete to base a score off. How would football fans feel if the scoring was changed from how many goals to what ever 3 judges thought of the way each team played?

Almost like the difference between pro and amateur wrestling. Obviously thats exagerating but its the difference between an actual sport and a business.

You can be good and promote yourself at the same time, look at Ali, Tyson, Mayorga etc. All the very best and u disputed at one point and also, everyone wanted to watch them.

Football results are affected (sometimes decided) by referees interpretation of different situations. All pro sport is a business. Its a business because its about making money but it certainly it still a sport. The start of this thread is correct, boxing fans should appreciate the best in the sport, even if they do not enjoy watching them.

Ok and they are manipulated by the players pretending to be fouled but the outcome of a football match is based on how many goals are scored. NOT by 3 judges telling us what they think of the players performance.

Amateur boxing like I said, is a sport that is also based on so ething you can count, just like football with goals.

Amateur boxing is now scored on the 10 point system by judges. Even before that it was scored by judges judging punches landed and scoring them and was just as easy to fix as pro boxing. I really do not get your point.

The new 10 point system is still based on who landed more punches.

If one fighter clearly lands 2 in a roumd and the other fighter clearly lands only 1 (it happens) it is not easy to fix at all. At least its not easy to get away with.

Whereas in pro, its totally down to what that particular judge thinks should be awarded more merit. Agression? Cleaner work? Whatever.
06-18-2014, 10:29 PM
J_Undisputed

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

I can appreciate knockouts and I can appreciate technical skill. Boxing as a sport and there for based on competition. The problem I have with some of the aforementioned "skill fighters" is not that they aren't big punchers or or sluggers or loudmouths or personalities. Its that part of their styles/ tactics are hard to define under the term fair competition..

It used to be that if you didn't to be there for a punch, you slipped it, parried it, blocked it then countered it. Someone was drubbing you with hard punches, and you started throwing heavier, or doubled your punch output, or countered and made sure your punches counted. If they ran from you, you worked the body and occasionally slipped a few south and slowed his mobility. The point was, you stepped up your level of battle/ effort. You competed...

Turning tail and running or throwing a punch then smothering them and tying up their arms is not competing. Neither is controlling locations of the fight, weight of your opponents or looking for any other of these advantages. Noone says you have to be slugger with no finesse. Take someone like Marquez for example. Even after being knocked down he doesn't get up and slow dance you, armbar you, run around you. He figures you out and picks you apart or does what he was already doing but better. You can stifle your opponents offense with angles, distance, head movement and jabbing to keep them off balance...instead of excessively clinching or running in a non combative posture. Keep the action going ...
06-19-2014, 08:29 AM
powerpuncher

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Undisputed

I can appreciate knockouts and I can appreciate technical skill. Boxing as a sport and there for based on competition. The problem I have with some of the aforementioned "skill fighters" is not that they aren't big punchers or or sluggers or loudmouths or personalities. Its that part of their styles/ tactics are hard to define under the term fair competition..

It used to be that if you didn't to be there for a punch, you slipped it, parried it, blocked it then countered it. Someone was drubbing you with hard punches, and you started throwing heavier, or doubled your punch output, or countered and made sure your punches counted. If they ran from you, you worked the body and occasionally slipped a few south and slowed his mobility. The point was, you stepped up your level of battle/ effort. You competed...

Turning tail and running or throwing a punch then smothering them and tying up their arms is not competing. Neither is controlling locations of the fight, weight of your opponents or looking for any other of these advantages. Noone says you have to be slugger with no finesse. Take someone like Marquez for example. Even after being knocked down he doesn't get up and slow dance you, armbar you, run around you. He figures you out and picks you apart or does what he was already doing but better. You can stifle your opponents offense with angles, distance, head movement and jabbing to keep them off balance...instead of excessively clinching or running in a non combative posture. Keep the action going ...

boxing has had holding since its beginning. jim jeffries used to wrestle to prepare for his matches. holding and using "dirty" tactics isnt a new part of the sport. it is how it has always been and how it will always be. this thread isnt about casual fans but about true fans of the sport. casual fans will love the blood and guts warriors while the actual fans can easily love the punchers and the boxers.

why not hate on the fighters who let their opponent hold them? for example, ruiz held all of the time which made his fights boring. but you know what? when jones fought him, he didnt let him hold and just beat him. most fighters allow their opponent to grab them. their are ways to prevent it. holding is a tactic whether you like it or not. as long as the ref doesnt think its excessive (and as we see, it takes a lot of holding to be excessive), it will always be used.
06-19-2014, 09:04 AM
erics44

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

It's the modern mainstream money-making culture.

People have always craved for intense entertainment (and pro boxing is just that, of course) but the thing is that audiences have become too numerous and you can't expect so many people to be very demanding on subtlety.

The same thing for music and films; 30 years ago it was the innovative and/or quality stuff that hit the mainstream; now the mainstream is packed with a mish-mash of rubbish year after year. No room for "weird" music like The Doors or David Bowie on Top of the Pops.

It all benefits the more mediocre artists whilst the good ones get the scraps.

ha

this thread need to be renamed

"talk utter bollox and mention the good old days"

Not bollocks at all. Sadly it's just the way it is with mainstream; the wider the public, the more it can or has to be dumbed down to make cash.

And I don't give a sod about the good old days.

boxing (and sport in general) is played at a much higher level nowadays than ever before

the "sluggers" of today would KO the finest slickest boxers of yesteryear with in a few rounds

boxing is at a peak with skill, fitness, athleticism etc

the public are better educated, the world demands better athletes and that's what it has

so unfortunately matey, I completely disagree with what you are saying, I don't really think you have thought it through

A bit off-topic that (I've just re-read my post and I don't know where I said boxing was better in the good old days) but "Sluggers" of today would KO the slickest of yesteryear? I don't know. I didn't mention anything to imply that.

As for the topic, people are more educated, yes, but then why do a whole load of them say slick boxing is "running"? Why do they boo at the fights of Rigondeaux, Lara, Ward? They actually make up a big percentage of the PPV and ticket buyers, as you know.

I drew a parallel with the music and film industry not because I see the past with rose-tinted glasses but to make a point that people seem to accept lower standards in entertainment in general. And boxing gets a touch of this tendency too.*

*Edit: that was my point.

films are better now than ever before, what are you on about?
06-19-2014, 09:31 AM
ross

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Undisputed

I can appreciate knockouts and I can appreciate technical skill. Boxing as a sport and there for based on competition. The problem I have with some of the aforementioned "skill fighters" is not that they aren't big punchers or or sluggers or loudmouths or personalities. Its that part of their styles/ tactics are hard to define under the term fair competition..

It used to be that if you didn't to be there for a punch, you slipped it, parried it, blocked it then countered it. Someone was drubbing you with hard punches, and you started throwing heavier, or doubled your punch output, or countered and made sure your punches counted. If they ran from you, you worked the body and occasionally slipped a few south and slowed his mobility. The point was, you stepped up your level of battle/ effort. You competed...

Turning tail and running or throwing a punch then smothering them and tying up their arms is not competing. Neither is controlling locations of the fight, weight of your opponents or looking for any other of these advantages. Noone says you have to be slugger with no finesse. Take someone like Marquez for example. Even after being knocked down he doesn't get up and slow dance you, armbar you, run around you. He figures you out and picks you apart or does what he was already doing but better. You can stifle your opponents offense with angles, distance, head movement and jabbing to keep them off balance...instead of excessively clinching or running in a non combative posture. Keep the action going ...

boxing has had holding since its beginning. jim jeffries used to wrestle to prepare for his matches. holding and using "dirty" tactics isnt a new part of the sport. it is how it has always been and how it will always be. this thread isnt about casual fans but about true fans of the sport. casual fans will love the blood and guts warriors while the actual fans can easily love the punchers and the boxers.

why not hate on the fighters who let their opponent hold them? for example, ruiz held all of the time which made his fights boring. but you know what? when jones fought him, he didnt let him hold and just beat him. most fighters allow their opponent to grab them. their are ways to prevent it. holding is a tactic whether you like it or not. as long as the ref doesnt think its excessive (and as we see, it takes a lot of holding to be excessive), it will always be used.

Actually if you watch the fight Ruiz tried actually fighting for once to try and prove he didnt need to hold and when he did get close the ref was on it straight away breaking them up. Shame the refs dont do the same with Ward.
06-19-2014, 06:37 PM
J_Undisputed

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Undisputed

I can appreciate knockouts and I can appreciate technical skill. Boxing as a sport and there for based on competition. The problem I have with some of the aforementioned "skill fighters" is not that they aren't big punchers or or sluggers or loudmouths or personalities. Its that part of their styles/ tactics are hard to define under the term fair competition..

It used to be that if you didn't to be there for a punch, you slipped it, parried it, blocked it then countered it. Someone was drubbing you with hard punches, and you started throwing heavier, or doubled your punch output, or countered and made sure your punches counted. If they ran from you, you worked the body and occasionally slipped a few south and slowed his mobility. The point was, you stepped up your level of battle/ effort. You competed...

Turning tail and running or throwing a punch then smothering them and tying up their arms is not competing. Neither is controlling locations of the fight, weight of your opponents or looking for any other of these advantages. Noone says you have to be slugger with no finesse. Take someone like Marquez for example. Even after being knocked down he doesn't get up and slow dance you, armbar you, run around you. He figures you out and picks you apart or does what he was already doing but better. You can stifle your opponents offense with angles, distance, head movement and jabbing to keep them off balance...instead of excessively clinching or running in a non combative posture. Keep the action going ...

boxing has had holding since its beginning. jim jeffries used to wrestle to prepare for his matches. holding and using "dirty" tactics isnt a new part of the sport. it is how it has always been and how it will always be. this thread isnt about casual fans but about true fans of the sport. casual fans will love the blood and guts warriors while the actual fans can easily love the punchers and the boxers.

why not hate on the fighters who let their opponent hold them? for example, ruiz held all of the time which made his fights boring. but you know what? when jones fought him, he didnt let him hold and just beat him. most fighters allow their opponent to grab them. their are ways to prevent it. holding is a tactic whether you like it or not. as long as the ref doesnt think its excessive (and as we see, it takes a lot of holding to be excessive), it will always be used.

Actually if you watch the fight Ruiz tried actually fighting for once to try and prove he didnt need to hold and when he did get close the ref was on it straight away breaking them up. Shame the refs dont do the same with Ward.

Right! He had the power advantage and figured a light heavyweight couldn't take his power. If anything Jones would have benefited more from clinching ruiz to tie up his arms and stall out his offense, using ward's style/tactics.
06-20-2014, 12:04 AM
goti71

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

It's the modern mainstream money-making culture.

People have always craved for intense entertainment (and pro boxing is just that, of course) but the thing is that audiences have become too numerous and you can't expect so many people to be very demanding on subtlety.

The same thing for music and films; 30 years ago it was the innovative and/or quality stuff that hit the mainstream; now the mainstream is packed with a mish-mash of rubbish year after year. No room for "weird" music like The Doors or David Bowie on Top of the Pops.

It all benefits the more mediocre artists whilst the good ones get the scraps.

ha

this thread need to be renamed

"talk utter bollox and mention the good old days"

Not bollocks at all. Sadly it's just the way it is with mainstream; the wider the public, the more it can or has to be dumbed down to make cash.

And I don't give a sod about the good old days.

boxing (and sport in general) is played at a much higher level nowadays than ever before

the "sluggers" of today would KO the finest slickest boxers of yesteryear with in a few rounds

boxing is at a peak with skill, fitness, athleticism etc

the public are better educated, the world demands better athletes and that's what it has

so unfortunately matey, I completely disagree with what you are saying, I don't really think you have thought it through

A bit off-topic that (I've just re-read my post and I don't know where I said boxing was better in the good old days) but "Sluggers" of today would KO the slickest of yesteryear? I don't know. I didn't mention anything to imply that.

As for the topic, people are more educated, yes, but then why do a whole load of them say slick boxing is "running"? Why do they boo at the fights of Rigondeaux, Lara, Ward? They actually make up a big percentage of the PPV and ticket buyers, as you know.

I drew a parallel with the music and film industry not because I see the past with rose-tinted glasses but to make a point that people seem to accept lower standards in entertainment in general. And boxing gets a touch of this tendency too.*

*Edit: that was my point.

films are better now than ever before, what are you on about?

Yes if your mental age is 14.
06-20-2014, 07:59 AM
powerpuncher

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Undisputed

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Undisputed

I can appreciate knockouts and I can appreciate technical skill. Boxing as a sport and there for based on competition. The problem I have with some of the aforementioned "skill fighters" is not that they aren't big punchers or or sluggers or loudmouths or personalities. Its that part of their styles/ tactics are hard to define under the term fair competition..

It used to be that if you didn't to be there for a punch, you slipped it, parried it, blocked it then countered it. Someone was drubbing you with hard punches, and you started throwing heavier, or doubled your punch output, or countered and made sure your punches counted. If they ran from you, you worked the body and occasionally slipped a few south and slowed his mobility. The point was, you stepped up your level of battle/ effort. You competed...

Turning tail and running or throwing a punch then smothering them and tying up their arms is not competing. Neither is controlling locations of the fight, weight of your opponents or looking for any other of these advantages. Noone says you have to be slugger with no finesse. Take someone like Marquez for example. Even after being knocked down he doesn't get up and slow dance you, armbar you, run around you. He figures you out and picks you apart or does what he was already doing but better. You can stifle your opponents offense with angles, distance, head movement and jabbing to keep them off balance...instead of excessively clinching or running in a non combative posture. Keep the action going ...

boxing has had holding since its beginning. jim jeffries used to wrestle to prepare for his matches. holding and using "dirty" tactics isnt a new part of the sport. it is how it has always been and how it will always be. this thread isnt about casual fans but about true fans of the sport. casual fans will love the blood and guts warriors while the actual fans can easily love the punchers and the boxers.

why not hate on the fighters who let their opponent hold them? for example, ruiz held all of the time which made his fights boring. but you know what? when jones fought him, he didnt let him hold and just beat him. most fighters allow their opponent to grab them. their are ways to prevent it. holding is a tactic whether you like it or not. as long as the ref doesnt think its excessive (and as we see, it takes a lot of holding to be excessive), it will always be used.

Actually if you watch the fight Ruiz tried actually fighting for once to try and prove he didnt need to hold and when he did get close the ref was on it straight away breaking them up. Shame the refs dont do the same with Ward.

Right! He had the power advantage and figured a light heavyweight couldn't take his power. If anything Jones would have benefited more from clinching ruiz to tie up his arms and stall out his offense, using ward's style/tactics.

then he made the same mistake with toney? he couldnt hold him. it had nothing to do with him not wanting to. jones wouldnt let him hold because he stayed on the outside.
06-20-2014, 09:02 AM
erics44

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

Quote:

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

Originally Posted by goti71

It's the modern mainstream money-making culture.

People have always craved for intense entertainment (and pro boxing is just that, of course) but the thing is that audiences have become too numerous and you can't expect so many people to be very demanding on subtlety.

The same thing for music and films; 30 years ago it was the innovative and/or quality stuff that hit the mainstream; now the mainstream is packed with a mish-mash of rubbish year after year. No room for "weird" music like The Doors or David Bowie on Top of the Pops.

It all benefits the more mediocre artists whilst the good ones get the scraps.

ha

this thread need to be renamed

"talk utter bollox and mention the good old days"

Not bollocks at all. Sadly it's just the way it is with mainstream; the wider the public, the more it can or has to be dumbed down to make cash.

And I don't give a sod about the good old days.

boxing (and sport in general) is played at a much higher level nowadays than ever before

the "sluggers" of today would KO the finest slickest boxers of yesteryear with in a few rounds

boxing is at a peak with skill, fitness, athleticism etc

the public are better educated, the world demands better athletes and that's what it has

so unfortunately matey, I completely disagree with what you are saying, I don't really think you have thought it through

A bit off-topic that (I've just re-read my post and I don't know where I said boxing was better in the good old days) but "Sluggers" of today would KO the slickest of yesteryear? I don't know. I didn't mention anything to imply that.

As for the topic, people are more educated, yes, but then why do a whole load of them say slick boxing is "running"? Why do they boo at the fights of Rigondeaux, Lara, Ward? They actually make up a big percentage of the PPV and ticket buyers, as you know.

I drew a parallel with the music and film industry not because I see the past with rose-tinted glasses but to make a point that people seem to accept lower standards in entertainment in general. And boxing gets a touch of this tendency too.*

*Edit: that was my point.

films are better now than ever before, what are you on about?

Yes if your mental age is 14.

what films are you watching?
06-20-2014, 10:42 AM
jahmez

Lol "if you're a true fan you should appreciate the fighters that I do". What a load of arrogant shit.
06-20-2014, 11:08 AM
erics44

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahmez

Lol "if you're a true fan you should appreciate the fighters that I do". What a load of arrogant shit.

ha
06-20-2014, 12:37 PM
powerpuncher

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahmez

Lol "if you're a true fan you should appreciate the fighters that I do". What a load of arrogant shit.

nobody said that. we just said that you should appreciate great fighters no matter how boring you think they are.
06-21-2014, 02:30 AM
jahmez

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahmez

Lol "if you're a true fan you should appreciate the fighters that I do". What a load of arrogant shit.

nobody said that. we just said that you should appreciate great fighters no matter how boring you think they are.

Alright God
06-21-2014, 08:17 AM
powerpuncher

Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahmez

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahmez

Lol "if you're a true fan you should appreciate the fighters that I do". What a load of arrogant shit.

nobody said that. we just said that you should appreciate great fighters no matter how boring you think they are.

Alright God

I forgive you. Just get it right next time.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page