Is boxing really just about hit and not get hit?

[El Gamo]

Exactly Lyle. Hit and don't get hit is every fighter's goal because Lyle said, getting hit is pointless if you can avoid it. So "hit and don't get hit" is really just the ideal thing you want to do. You can still get hit and try your best not to get hit and be exciting.

True,that could be an inerpretation.....or...

either hit or not get hit or hit harder than the other guy.

The great thing about boxing is that there isn't ONE way to fight.

The contrast in styles is what makes it so interesting. It's what makes a boxer vs. puncher fight so interesting to watch.

For a slick boxer, it's about hitting and not getting hit.
For a big puncher, it's about taking 3 punches for the chance to land 1.

Which one is better? That's why you watch the fight.

Totally agree,thats why I like the sport,the diversity and thats why a number of my fave fighters have different skills.

Sure the idea is to hit and not be hit,, Modern Day so called "Boxing Purist" have forgot about the "hit" part in that phrase and focus so much on not getting hit that they have no real offense. havent a clue on how to lead out . no confidence in being first.

The great fighters in history have always been willing to risk loosing to win. Take SRL.. by today’s standards he would be considered a slugger. Ray preferred to box, however he would press when the opportunity was there. then there is Floyd , a f ighter who would have the opportunity to shine in just about every match yet in most cases he wouldn’t seize it. that’s why 20 years from now people will still be talking about SRL.

Superb posting,really good, I like the way you posted it,the points and your example. CC brother.

Don't take this the wrong way El Gamo...because I don't mean it as harsh as it's going to sound...read the entire post instead of focusing on this...

Respectfully, I have to say that I think "Is boxing really just about hit and not get hit?" is partially the wrong question to ask.

Really...I thing that it's full on wrong.

Personally, I feel that boxing should be about what it does for you...not what is right or wrong or what everyone wants.

Boxing to me is different than what it is to most people. For me it is about hit...but more about not getting hit.

For me...I like a stylish defensive fighter more than I do a crude puncher with power & meager fundamental skills.

I have to say that boxing should be about the individual instead of the group consensus...but then again...punchers do put asses in seats more than a tactical fighter does.

no no brother,I think you misinterpreted my thread. I was just asking what you guys thought it was,what it mean to you. Does it mean hit and not get hit to you all,is that the pinnacle of boxing? There is no right or wrong answer. The highlighted points is what I was looking for. Thats what boxing means to you.

For me, the art of boxing is in the different styles. Like in art, there are a lot of ugly, unpleasing styles (john ruiz for example), but the diversity of styles is what makes boxing great. For Larry Merchant to suggest that guys like Cory Spinks should change or find another profession is absolutely disgusting. Sure, slugfests are great but if you want to eliminate all other styles and make boxing just two guys throwing bombs at each other for 30 minutes, that cheapens and ruins the sport. It turns it into something like MMA where "who the better man is" takes a back seat to providing blood and excitement to the crowds.

I have an idea. Instead of having guys change their styles to be more crowd appealing, why don't the fans who can't appreciate different styles and skill over violence just stop watching boxing??

Excellent points,CC my man. I totally agree,I love the different styles too,thats what attracts me to the sport although I disagree strongly with your last statement. Like I said in the original post,some people may not like that style but I don't think they need to stop watching boxing.