A real boxing fan can enjoy a technical battle (Mayweather, Rigondeaux etc...)

all fan girls only like brawlers? i think not.

 

don't sully broccoli by comparing it to hughie fury.

 

When the opposition is good, yeah. But no point in watching when you know the outcome of the fight. Like last Lara fight. But if Lara fought Charlo, who can hurt him. Yeah. It's enjoyable when things can happen.

 

WRONG, it was like witnessing a mouse in a cage navigating how to get out of it, compared to AJ vs Takam which was merely the hamster sharpening its teeth on the cage and consuming its offspring because it was stronger.

 

meh....good scrap is a good scrap..i don't care what it is

 

I think you really mean "defensive" rather than "technical" - there's plenty of technique to offense as well as defense.

But anyway you are basically correct.

The only disclaimer is that watching a defensive fighter against some completely overmatched opponent who is not close to the same skill level is pretty boring.

A skillful "technical battle" is enjoyable too but only if it's actually a battle and not a walkover.

 

Depends on the nature of the defensive fighter. If the defensive fighter stands in the pocket and keeps making the other guy miss, while countering effectively from time to time that can be pretty compelling. Not everyone's cup of tea but when done properly it's still a fun view.

 

Sure, buddy.

How many times have you watched Rigondeaux-Agbeko in its entirety? Less than 5X, you're a poser.

 

I'd rather pay a 1000 fine than have to watch 10 of Rigos fights in a row

 

Did I say that?

 

This is one of the reasons why you're supposed to reward the aggressor. Aggressors win rounds. Or at least that's how it used to be.

Fighting off the backfoot, countering and making the opponent come forward and miss now seems to be most effective way to win fights now. Number 1, because it's easier to counter than initiate. Why? Because it takes less skill. Who's the most skilled fighter I've ever seen extensively on TV? That would be Roberto Duran. Savagery in the ring does not always correlate with bluntness. Number 2, for some ridiculous reason judges now seem to be rewarding being the passive man in the ring. See the scoring on GGG-Canelo for an indication of how modern judges score. Which to me is a total pussified way of judging. I want to ask those judges where are your nuts? This is boxing. You take what's yours.

 

This thread is going to backfire/fail miserably because there is an implied tone from the OP that defensive/risk averse fighting takes more skill. Which is simply false because it takes more skill to initiate a technical attack. Secondly, this is a guilty pleasure sport. We don't want to see people die, but we as fans (the majority of us) want to see the two men in the ring hurt each other really bad. As savage as that sounds, deep down that's what we want to see, even if we won't admit it.

 

I dont think people have fully given credit to the level of skill that was involved in the GGG v Canelo fight.
All the controversy of the decision masked what was a great fight in my opinion and dragged boxing through mud.
I think if Canelo lost he would have come out with a lot more credit and would have made a rematch a much bigger event.
Anyway I'm going off point so I'll leave it at that

 

I agree. Some defensive fighters are a good watch. JMM is a good example because he never clinches, tries to hit you as hard as possible and cause maximum pain. Also doesn't really run away or constantly give ground. It is his preference to react to what you're doing and he's very skilled at doing that. But the majority of defensive fighters don't have his mindset or ability to be compelling.