Printable View
If I think of who I feel is a great boxer---- Duran, Hagler, Tony Ayala, Aaron Pryor, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey, Evander Holyfield, Tommy Hearns, GGG, ODLH, ---- it seems to me that they are all really really exciting to watch.
Name a great boxer who was consistently boring. Not talking about the off-night, but the USUAL night.
I agree for the most part but there are a few great fighters in history that are boring. Hopkins is the most recent example. I enjoy watching Floyd fight even though others think he is boring, but Hopkins is almost unwatchable.
Hop got too old, but in his early days he fought exciting fights.
Guys like Willie Pep and Pernell Whitaker could be consistently boring.
Bean-Bore,Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Just how many of Willie Pep's bouts did you watch.
Tell us please.
Hopkins' earlier fights were exciting if you like watching a man tap another man's nuts with his glove.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
tapping is boring but he once massaged themQuote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoHopkins' earlier fights were exciting if you like watching a man tap another man's nuts with his glove.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Boring is just a new way to discredit people that refuse to lose. Can't beat them, they must be good. But in this era we keep trying to find new ways to bring a man down.
If you don't like how a man fights, don't watch them. I don't enjoy the face first fighters everyone says "....is always in a good fight". I disagree and say they are never in a good fight. So I don't watch face first fighters. I like a high action fight like Hagler/Hearns but Ward/Gatti bores me to sleep. Who can take more punishment is not exciting boxing to me. I want to see all skills displayed first, if it turns into a war that's gravy.
BS, a boring boxer does not = a great boxer. When Chris John found and beat Marquez he was not only boring. Not trying to discredit the guy, he's just not a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
fighters who bore the public every time are NOT true greats. Look at the thrilling fights Marciano gave us
Look at the thrillers that Holyfield and Tyson and Bowe gave us..........Pryor and Duran and Leonard....
ooooh, Aaron The Hawk Pryor............... oooooooooooooh
I've watched a lot of them, but you know what? I don't know much about Pep's accomplishments as a Somali pirate. Maybe you can make a thread and educate me about how many cruise ships he robbed and sank, or maybe go into more detail about the time he went into space you fan fiction writing cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill PaxtomBean-Bore,Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Just how many of Willie Pep's bouts did you watch.
Tell us please.
Enough of you!
You mentioned GGG and tony ayala amongst greats :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
I think I would include Wlad as a great fighter. I know not everyone agrees but he is certainly not consistently exciting. Floyd is another example of a great who's not consistently exciting although I do find his defense and jab exciting to watch. Rigo has greatness, but can often be boring. I guess a lot of it is subjective. I'm sure all these guys have fans who consider them consistently exciting.
It's probably BS because it's not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyBS, a boring boxer does not = a great boxer. When Chris John found and beat Marquez he was not only boring. Not trying to discredit the guy, he's just not a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
Respectfully disagree.
I would say great boxers have to be special, they have to bring one or several elements of the game to the new level.
Mayweather earned TONs of buck and have no losses for long long time. This is exceptional
Maybe you can focus more on what is BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonIt's probably BS because it's not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyBS, a boring boxer does not = a great boxer. When Chris John found and beat Marquez he was not only boring. Not trying to discredit the guy, he's just not a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I never said a boring boxer = a great boxer. That's what's BS, because I didn't even say anything remotely close to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyMaybe you can focus more on what is BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonIt's probably BS because it's not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyBS, a boring boxer does not = a great boxer. When Chris John found and beat Marquez he was not only boring. Not trying to discredit the guy, he's just not a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
The problem today is people look for so many ways to prove they are right "he had 6 FOTY fights, he was champion in X weight classes etcetera". You have those and people keep adding more and more and more. Exciting? Where does that come into play in a fight? You entertain the crowd to earn more money, you fight to win the fight. Clearly winning the fight is the goal. Exciting is secondary.
this thread makes me think of the saying "I can't define Porn but I know it when I see it". Greatness is like that, it can't be defined because it varies. You can't lay out a series of qualifiers and say "meeting this criteria you are great", that's silly. Arturro Gatti was not a great boxer, but he achieved greatness in boxing. That's how far outside definition the sport is, you can not be great and be great. Or you can be great and not be great.(G-Man, Meldrick Taylor)
People can try all they want but the sport is too subtle for rigid clarifications, that's what makes it the sweet science.
What are you saying Ron Swanson.
You're all over the place.
So what you're saying is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
That you fell asleep during the Mickey Ward vs. Arturo Gatti bouts.
Then you know nothing about the action that happened in the Ring.
You're backing yourself into a corner Dutch.
Oh, by the way. Candy del Mar told me to tell you ...... "Stop calling her."
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.auEB...g&pid=15.1&P=0
Ali was boring as fuck for alot of his fights and is consider the greatest by fucking everyone one of the most known boxers ever. Hopkins also a boring fucker for most of his fights but another great fighter. Mayweather boring but at 130 and 135 he was far from a boring fighter beat the shit out of guys. Jmm when he fights a guy who can box and not get hit is a boring fucking fighter John, Mayweather and Bradley boring because Jmm cant be aggressive verse elite guys who can jab and move. Pac was not that exciting in Mosley, Bradley, and Mayweather fight he looked like a fucking zombie gatekeeper boring. People talk about Gatti well when he fought great fighters he got his ass beat so he looks good against none greats that does not make him great. I will take Hopkins, Mayweather and Ali over a Gatti who just a fucking punching bag and never provide to be the best that not being great i am sorry. So no great fighters are not always exciting this is real life not a fucking movie and there all kinds of types of fighters so not ever style is let me get hit in the face that be fucking stupid.
Winky Wright? May not be an all time "great" but definitely one of the best defensive boxers I had the pleasure to watch live. Its odd though, he's one you just like to see dissect someone. The subtleties and a jab you might as well just glue to your forehead prior to the opening bell. Sharpshooters can be very exciting and its just as much on the other guy to break the shell. Virgil Hill..very very stick and move, nearly one arm only at times. Then again even he had a couple of explosive ko's you couldn't see coming. Styles man.
Antonio Tarver.
Not sure if some call him boring or just don't like him.
I disagree. Let's turn it around a bit and say:
Everybody who gets excited watching a fighter fight automatically thinks that fighter is a great fighter.
For example, I think that people like Floyd, or Sweet Pea, or Calzaghe are wonderful to watch. I admire their technical skills, their nerve and their disciple ...... So I think they are exciting fighters.
I also love watching Tyson, Benn, Hearns and others knock seven bells of shit out of people ...... So I think they are exciting.
Someone else might enjoy the latter and not the former, so they might not agree that Floyd or Whittaker are great fighters,
Someone else might think that Benn was a limited and messy brawler, therefore didn't find him exciting to watch and therefore would argue that He wasn't a great fighter.
Maybe it's all in the eye (and heart) of the beholder??