Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
I think boxing reaches people on a lot of different levels. Generally like any sport or interest the more someone is acquainted with it the more their interest in and appreciation of it's more subtle finer points will be stimulated.

For a very casual fan probably only the most blood and guts style brutal slugfests are entertaining but as someone's knowledge of and interest in all the technical naunces develops they will appreciate things like defensive strategies, foot positionings and stances.

I'm only an arm chair fan, no actual boxing experience but I'm a fairly obsessive fan and can really enjoy a good tactical fight. I'm also a keen chess player and used to love watching live chess on the rare occaisions it was televised, I guess I just enjoy seeing a strategy get implemented.

But certainly at the end of the day boxing is a contact sport so will only ever be as exciting as the amount of contact action in the ring allows.

Personally I like the way boxing is right now. We have plenty of bangers and brawlers, lots of fast paced slick tactictians and the more elusive defensively minded fighters.

I like watching all of them. The only style I really don't appreciate is excessive holding and mauling.

Guys like Hatton, Ruiz, Raheem and Cornelius Bundrage kind of frustrate me because they are always spoiling the action and turn fights into a stop start affair. To me there's no artistry in that, I like fights to be fluid and free running. But I do love to see strategies in fights and enjoy watching guys engaging in a mental strategic struggle over the course of many rounds.
I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed. For example, taking risks is a virtue by all means, yet is sorely lacking in your average technical fight. In fact, in some fights involving the most technical fihgters there is absolutely no risk involved. This is a big no-no in a sport that seeks mainstream acceptance. The "greater risk, greater glory" adage is applicable to all sports and that is why Michael Jordan propelled not only himself but his sport to greater heights. Instead of going for the easy deuce via jump shot he drives through three defenders for a spectacular dunk. Or instead of driving to the basket for a tie he goes for a risk-filled three point shot. Conversely, the reason why tennis got boring in the Sampras era was because Sampras predictably beat all his opponents with his power serves. Put Agassi in his place and the sport would've flourished, as Tiger did with golf.

Moreover, there is less drama in a highly technical fight, and this is what the sport needs to get more fans. I mean, boxing should be the most dramatic sport in the world because it features two men out to unleash their most primal instincts on each other and yet, a sport where men bounce balls like idiots with the aim of shooting it in a basket without the least bit of physical contact excites the casual sports fan even more than the premier fight sport. There is something terribly wrong about this.