Is boxing really just about hit and not get hit?

[Gandalf]

Saying boxing is about hitting and not being hit is like people saying when investing in shares, buy low sell high, its just the self evident desired outcome.

How a fighter (or an investor) goes about creating that outcome is what makes it interesting and there are a multitude of different styles and philosophies to achieve either goal.

In a race the goal is to finish first, doesn't make it boring because they arn't trying for different goals, that is just the goal and skill and entertainment is in seeing how they plan to win.

Nice posting

[Purist]

I hear alot of people say boxing is just about hitting and not getting hit but is that true? Can't boxing be whatever the individual percieves/interprets it to be? I think it was Andre Berto in an interview who stated boxings roots were from the Romans/before that when 2 guys fight it out for the approval of the crowd and to see who the stronger man/better fighter with more heart is.

If all fighters adhered the hit and not get hit philosophy,how many fans would we have left? Don't get me wrong,I love love watching some defensive fighters in action,I just want to get your thoughts and opinions on this?

How do you percieve boxing? Do you appreciate all styles? Or ar the top fighters at the moment too defensively orientated for your liking? Let me know people,I'm interested to see what you think.

It's also about winning and individual style.

And each fighter has their own. Which is why Merchant disgusts me when he talks about getting rid of the fighters who fight like "they dont want to get their hair messed up"

Does formless combat make any sense to you? So he just wants boxing to not be about strategy anymore and just pressing a fight.

Sure it may get some ratings but it doesn't make sense if we saw Cory Spinks going and trading with a fighter bigger then him. Just minimize his chances against anyone else? Why would you play into your opponents strengths?!

I think Floyd was right when he said what he said about Merchant

[Lords Gym]

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.

[ICB]

Is boxing really just about hit and not get hit?

Well yes thats what you aim for in boxing hitting and not getting hit as much as possible thats what its all about i love toe to toe slugfest like everyone does but most boxers will want to hit and not get hit as much as possible wouldn't everyone on this forum ??

[Trainer Monkey]

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 however in most cases he wouldn’t seize it. that’s why 20 years from now people will still be talking about SRL.

cc on that,nicely put
To quote the Warren Zevon song "Boom Boom Mancinci"
"The name of the game is,be hit,and hit back"

[Wacko3205]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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??

[Mar]

What the last person said is my opinion as well.....boxing isn't about violence it's about skill, i love a good slugfest as much as the next guy but boxing and the way it is scored is more about points and winning rounds no matter how you do it...there's mms for those who want to see a bloody knock out every fight.....people like my father are funny to me cause he complains about the lack of knock out these days...but back when tyson was knocking everyone out in the early rounds he was bitchin cause there weren't any good fights and he wasted 50 bucks for 60 seconds worth of action...at the end of the day i like skilled fighters like mayweather a whole lot better...

[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.

[El Gamo]

I hear alot of people say boxing is just about hitting and not getting hit but is that true? Can't boxing be whatever the individual percieves/interprets it to be? I think it was Andre Berto in an interview who stated boxings roots were from the Romans/before that when 2 guys fight it out for the approval of the crowd and to see who the stronger man/better fighter with more heart is.

If all fighters adhered the hit and not get hit philosophy,how many fans would we have left? Don't get me wrong,I love love watching some defensive fighters in action,I just want to get your thoughts and opinions on this?

How do you percieve boxing? Do you appreciate all styles? Or ar the top fighters at the moment too defensively orientated for your liking? Let me know people,I'm interested to see what you think.

It's also about winning and individual style.

And each fighter has their own. Which is why Merchant disgusts me when he talks about getting rid of the fighters who fight like "they dont want to get their hair messed up"

Does formless combat make any sense to you? So he just wants boxing to not be about strategy anymore and just pressing a fight.

Sure it may get some ratings but it doesn't make sense if we saw Cory Spinks going and trading with a fighter bigger then him. Just minimize his chances against anyone else? Why would you play into your opponents strengths?!

I think Floyd was right when he said what he said about Merchant

CC,good posting. I believe that too,it's about winning. Each fighter must do whatever it takes to get the W,make the $$$,stay undefeated,whatever their goal is. The highlighted part is excellent.

[El Gamo]

Just to reiterate,I'm just asking what you think boxing is about. And I don't think hit and not get hit is bad at all,I just want to hear different opinions.

[luvfightgame]

I like a fight. Doesn't mean you have to get hit alot, but if your focus is more on not getting hit than it is on hitting the other guy, I won't give you a round.

I appreciate good boxing as well as slugging. But for me at the end of the day it's still about kicking someone's arse. If you don't get after it and try to beat up the guy your fighting it's more like sparring than a fight. Ultimately the goal is to concuss your opponent, and win decisively if you don't strive for that then you don't win the fight. No matter how many more times you hit your opponent. Too me a good example is the last fight for Kessler. He tried hard to put away the other fighter without getting careless and being to risky. If you contrast that with the Spinks Taylor fight than you have both ends of the spectrum.. Then you take the PBF-ODH fight and it falls right in the middle of the 2. PBF was definitely more focused on not getting hit, but he landed some good shots, however for me he didn't go for the ko. He didn't try to dominate, he went after it for about 30 seconds in the 10th round and that is it. Could have went either way but for me he didn't do enough. He didn't take a risk until the last seconds of the last round and it's not enough for me.

I agree SRL is a fine example of a boxer. He would go for the ko when he had the chance and definitely could box and avoid punches. I think for me it's more about someone overcoming their limitations. I would prefer an underskilled fighter that gives all they got to a supremely talented and skilled fighter that coasts through their wins. I never really like Shaq because of that. To me the guy should be dominating and scoring 40 points a game. If you are 7 feet and 300lbs you better be controlling the game. But to make millions and not be able to make a damn freethrow. That's garbage......

Kinda like what Chris Rock says..... people say "I take care of my kids" and always want credit for things they're supposed to do. You get credit when you go above and beyond. Not for just doing what you're supposed to.

[Puya]

I think it is exactly like that hit and Try no to get hit so what the hell all boxer dodge all those punches and cover themself for? No to get hit of course I know is Boring but is what evolves in to.

[spanky-banky]

thats exactly what the science of boxing is all about- hit and not get hit.......when i say not get hit i dont mean running for 12 rds

[Purist]

thats exactly what the science of boxing is all about- hit and not get hit.......when i say not get hit i dont mean running for 12 rds

Thats thething about boxing. They teach you to cut off the ring.

And if they cannot cut off the ring on a defensive minded boxer then its more their fault because they apparently trained for "all this time" for a defensive fighter and they get in the ring and forget how to cut off the ring

Thats not the defensive fighter's fault in my opinion