-
are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
i feel like i have read on this board too many times about fighters being boring and that they deserve to lose because they arent crowd pleasing fighters. are we forgetting that it doesnt matter how you win as long as you win? and this thread is for supposed boxing fans, not casual fans. i understand that casual fans wont watch a boring fighter even if they are really good (for the most part) but most boxing fans will watch a great fighter no matter what (or at least they should).
a boring fighter may bring in less money to fights and less interest but i dont know how we as boxing fans cant just appreciate talented fighters. for example, the term "running" in boxing is ridiculous unless the fighter is actually just trying to survive. usually when people use the term "running," it means that they stayed back and jabbed and prevented any sort of exchanges. that isnt running, its called being effective. just like when people said that de la hoya ran the second half of the tito fight. he didnt run, he just stayed back and effectively outboxed tito.
i honestly dont care how boring a fighter is. i understand that the whole point of sports is winning. i mean honestly, what others sports matter that much on your style of play? in every other sport, winners will always get respect no matter what. in boxing, winners wont get respect if you thought they were boring. that is just ridiculous.
that is my rant.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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?
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
i feel like i have read on this board too many times about fighters being boring and that they deserve to lose because they arent crowd pleasing fighters. are we forgetting that it doesnt matter how you win as long as you win? and this thread is for supposed boxing fans, not casual fans. i understand that casual fans wont watch a boring fighter even if they are really good (for the most part) but most boxing fans will watch a great fighter no matter what (or at least they should).
a boring fighter may bring in less money to fights and less interest but i dont know how we as boxing fans cant just appreciate talented fighters. for example, the term "running" in boxing is ridiculous unless the fighter is actually just trying to survive. usually when people use the term "running," it means that they stayed back and jabbed and prevented any sort of exchanges. that isnt running, its called being effective. just like when people said that de la hoya ran the second half of the tito fight. he didnt run, he just stayed back and effectively outboxed tito.
i honestly dont care how boring a fighter is. i understand that the whole point of sports is winning. i mean honestly, what others sports matter that much on your style of play? in every other sport, winners will always get respect no matter what. in boxing, winners wont get respect if you thought they were boring. that is just ridiculous.
that is my rant.
its probably you who is missing the point, boxing is entertainment
the rules are there and adapted to try and make it more entertaining
other sports adapt, football for example is constantly adapting the rules to try to create more goals. other sports are the same, cricket, rugby, etc etc etc
I always hear that judges tend to favour the come forward more aggressive fighter, whether they do or not is another question, they should tho theres no question about that because that is more entertaining
andre ward is a fantastic fighter, very hard to beat, he makes a relatively small amount of money, and rightly so, because the very good and effective style he has created is hard to watch
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
I think the culture change that has occurred in the past decades has created a "I want it now " way of thinking and this has crossed into sports and other forms of entertainment but professional boxing is still a sport and some of the skills that were appreciated in years passed are no longer viewed in way and with a more modern audience the subtle skill of say a benny valgar would certainly not be appreciated
-
I think we're going to have to accept that people are stupid and too damn lazy to learn why anything other than "he hit hard, me like" is interesting. Boxing reflects why homosapien will be the first species to cause our own extinction. If anything is good we are sure to ruin it. Pandering to the lowest common denominator, our recipe is for disaster.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YIDDLE
I think the culture change that has occurred in the past decades has created a "I want it now " way of thinking and this has crossed into sports and other forms of entertainment but professional boxing is still a sport and some of the skills that were appreciated in years passed are no longer viewed in way and with a more modern audience the subtle skill of say a benny valgar would certainly not be appreciated
utter bollox
always been the same
people love a fight and fighters that fight make more money
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
The point of boxing is to promote an event that will draw a crowd and make money.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
agreed. the thing that i have learned is that money ruins everything. everything turns into making money instead of being the best. like you said, most blockbuster movies are actually very good. they have a lot of explosions and small minded people are entertained by that rather than by a movie which makes you think.
same with boxing i guess. small minded people cant enjoy a master boxing but can enjoy a brawl which doesnt take any brain power to comprehend.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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?
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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"
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
I enjoy a good sound technical boxer as much as I do a slugger. People find Rigo to be one of the most boring fighters but just watching him you can see how much he's thinking in there and he's so precise landing clean accurate punches. The thing with Ward is that yes he is very good and undefeated but he hits once and holds. Throws a two punches combo holds and squeezes the guys arms. That's just not boxing what he does is basically what MMA fighters do when against the cage. Hold throw small meaningless punches shoulder and elbow.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Professional boxing as someone stated is a business. Heck, all professional sports are a business. If you can't draw in the spectators either at the event or on tv, it means the guy is not a draw, then that means less money.
Again, I already addressed this issue in the other thread when some poster said it's the idiots that like action fighters, brawlers, and guys that come to fight as "the sign of the times." No, it's not. An exciting fighter has always drawn the masses since the conception of this sport, whether it's the hardcore boxing fan or casual sports fan. Guys like Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Ali, Tyson carried the sport at one time because they were exciting, and at one time were the most famous athletes in the entire sports world. Even the exciting guys below the HW division draws the masses such as Duran, Hagler, and recently Pacquiao. Professional boxing thrives when you have these guys.
Professional boxing's lifeline throughout it's history are the exciting fighters I have mentioned, it's not the Rigondeauxs.
-
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
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
-
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
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.
the thing is this might happen
ha, it would be interesting like, id watch it at least for a round or two
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
I agree pal, I understand boxing and I understand the skill behind it and why certain fighters are so good, I get it
but id rather watch blood and guts and sweat and tears, id rather watch 2 fighters stood in front of each other trying to land punches and then trying to land some more
yeah there has to be skill involved but as long as the type of skill doesn't compromise the fight in terms of entertainment
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Boxing or rather pugilism does not have some moral obligation to devolve at the same rate as its fan base along with the short attention span that caused that devolution. The fight has taken the back seat to the show. Boxing matches or the actual fights are being judged by how many ppv numbers they do.
Boxing is not even about boxing.
That is my gripe about today after faithfully following the sport for close to 5 decades. Not sure what else I personally can draw on other then my own witness. If not observation, experience and repeatability then what? I wasn't born cynical.
-
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
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
That's why boxing is going to be in BIG trouble in the next few years when guys like Floyd and Manny are retired.
Boxing has become a spectacle, a cash grab. And they're not going to out-spectacle the UFC, at least not without Manny and Floyd.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Boxing fans today are the same as the boxing fans of yesteryear. Nothing has changed. Many boxing fans have always wanted action fights and action fighters, this crosses all eras of the sport. Rigondeaux would still stink out the joint during the golden age of boxing, which would be the 20s to 50s and would not attract fans. The boxing fans have never changed. Here's a documented example:
Quote:
Boxing's biggest current attraction is a roughneck middleweight from Manhattan's tough Mulberry Street. Rocco ("Rocky") Graziano packed them in at Madison Square Garden last week for what fans thought would be his sixth straight knockout, a new Garden record. He fooled himself and the fans by winning on points from ex-Sailor Sonny Home.
As a boxer, Rocky Graziano is a joke, but he has the top two requisites to ring fame & fortune — a paralyzing punch, an iron jaw. His 155 lbs. ace mounted on a sturdy pair of legs that would never per form fancy ring steps. He mauls in...
Sport: The Making of Rocky - TIME
This Time Magazine article was dated January 1946, during the Golden Age of boxing. Rocky Graziano, who was a banger and slugger sold out Madison Square Garden numerous times because he was an all out action fighter that brought out people. He had little boxing ability but possessed the punching power, chin, and most important of all the all out action to be a marquee attraction. Rocky Graziano was the Provodnikov of his day. Want another example? The great Jack Dempsey whom even boxing writers back then described as an all out brawler sold out stadiums and became the most famous athlete in the world, he even surpassed Babe Ruth in terms of popularity during the roaring 20s. How about another example? The very 1st heavyweight champion, John L. Sullivan aka the Boston Strong Boy, was described as a brawler and mauler who brought out the masses because he was exciting, while Gentleman Jim Corbett who outboxed and ko John L. Sullivan was described as boring and not as exciting as Sullivan. Sounds familiar?
The boxing fans have never changed, we have always wanted the action fighter and action fights. A Rigondeaux would not be fighting in Madison Square Garden and selling it out even during the Golden Age of boxing, that arena was only reserved for the marquee attractions.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
A Rigondeaux would not be fighting in Madison Square Garden and selling it out even during the Golden Age of boxing, that arena was only reserved for the marquee attractions.
What about Willie Pep? A feather-fisted runner who's motto was "he who hits and runs away lives to fight another day"? He was a fixture at MSG.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Listen, nobody is going to argue that entertaining brawlers don't have more mass appeal than counter fighters. Tons of guys have made great living for themselves in boxing because, despite having little/mediocre talent, they had an entertaining style and/or an endearing/interesting personality. And on the flip side, there are a ton of guys who had elite talent but a boring style and/or personality, and went grossly underpaid and under appreciated during their careers. People like to see blood, violence, and knockouts. That's something we all like, from the casual who knows nothing about boxing to the hardcore boxing aficionado, we all appreciate violent wars and brutal knockouts.
But if you consider yourself a true boxing fan, you should have an appreciation for the art and science of boxing as well. Guys like Floyd, Rigo, Ward, ect are elite level fighters - guys who exemplify true "sweet science" - and if hardcore boxing fans don't appreciate the talent that these guys have, then boxing is FUCKED. The UFC is more exciting and violent than boxing. If the art of the sweet science doesn't even interest the hardcore boxing fans, than boxing is clearly a sinking ship.
I think if you're one of those guys who complains about how boring Floyd/Rigo/Ward/ect are and think that guys like Ward should start being loud and playing a "character" like Floyd does to promote himself, and think they should abandon their art and fight stupidly for your entertainment, you should be ashamed of yourself and you're little more than a casual fan.
Nobody is saying you can't enjoy the bloody wars, but give respect to the guys who have dedicated their lives to the art of the sport too.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
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.
-
Re: are we forgetting what the point of boxing is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
A Rigondeaux would not be fighting in Madison Square Garden and selling it out even during the Golden Age of boxing, that arena was only reserved for the marquee attractions.
What about Willie Pep? A feather-fisted runner who's motto was "he who hits and runs away lives to fight another day"? He was a fixture at MSG.
Pep was not a feather fisted puncher in his prime. He actually had decent power that can ko you if given the opportunity and he dazzled in the ring. I can't say the same when I watch a Rigondeaux fight. Yes he has great technical skills and that's about it.
That's beside the point, my point being is that pro boxing since it's birth has been carried by action fighters, sluggers, brawlers, ko artists or guys like ALi that dazzled in the ring. Guys that had it and brought it into the ring. Some posters here think that in some bygone era that Rigondeaux will be more appreciated while action fighters, brawlers, ko artists, won't be because the fans were more "evolved" and "knowledgeable" is patently false. Rigondeaux if placed in the golden era won't be selling out stadiums like Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Robinson, Lamotta, etc. This sport has and will always be carried by the likes of the action guys. Who says? Boxing history says. So it's not a devolvement of the sport and its fan base if fans prefer a Pacquiao, Duran, Hagler, 80s Tyson, Pryor, Holyfield, Chavez to a Rigondeaux. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise and it's also ridiculous to suggest fans that don't like the style of Rigondeaux isn't a "true" or "real" boxing fan.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
