Is boxing a mere art form?

[Kev]

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I think the theory that "the casual fan loves a brawl while the expert loves a more technical fight" is erroneous, outdated, and really flawed.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.

I do agree with you completely that boxing is very much a specator sport and so that for the good of the game we need to have a fair share of fast action crowd friendly fights. I also think we are getting our share of those fights.

But boxing isn't just about brawling, it is very much an art like all martial arts and for people heavily involved in the sport it can be delightful to see a master boxer showcasing his skills, including his defensive skills.

I certainly wouldn't want every fighter to fight like Cory Spinks, Floyd Mayweather or Ivan Calderon but I do love watching all of them. I'll readily agree that the Spinks Taylor fight was a stinker as Spinks seemed to completely ignore the primary goal of boxing which was to make contact with your opponet but for the most part these fighters bring some artistry and elegance to the brutal sport of boxing.

I would hate it if every boxer was a blood and guts type, don't get me wrong I love those guys as well but boxing is all about styles and strategy.

Boxing in many ways is analagous to chess but also to life itself. There is a predator and a prey, an enemy and the task is to either eat your opponent or avoid being eaten.

One of the beauties of chess is that there are countless different strategies of defence and attack, and in nature the sheer variety and ingenuity of animals to hunt for prey or to avoid being prey are things that make us truly marvel.

I want my boxing to be like that. There is one common goal, to defeat your opponent whilst not being defeated yourself but I want to see boxers approach that goal in as many different ways as possible.

That's what makes the sport great, the variety, the different styles, the ingenuity of it all, built on over a 100 years of trial and error.

[Kev]

Also another point to make is that every boxer has different physical attributes.

If all you want is a blood and guts brawl and every fight is a slugfest then actual boxing ability doesn't matter so much. Basically the bigger, stronger guy with the best physical attributes will always win.

But boxing isn't about that. I want to see a smaller, lighter punching man, with a relatively unimpressive physique still take on and win against a bigger, meaner, stronger opponent by using his superior ring craft and speed.

Take the Calderon Cazares fight for example. Ivan Calderon was 7 inches shorter and has no power to his shots, but using his slick, fast elusive style he was able to beat the much bigger man.

That is true boxing to me, Calderon was using his pugilistic skills to defeat an opponent who on paper had every advantage.

Isn't that what the very essence of martial arts is about?