How important are aesthetics in rating a fighter?

The "eye test" isn't about aesthetics, but how effective they are in the ring. Hopkins, Wlad, Pac and Ward aren't particularly aesthetic imo, but they are very effective.

 

The "eye-test" is judgement based how good a boxer looks, regardless of any other factors, such as whether or not they can go a championship distance; take a punch; make weight easily; get up off the canvas; adapt mid-fight; beat established and elite competition, etc etc etc. It's all about appearances.

A judgment based on appearances is quite probably why some prospects attract attention and get better opportunities. It could also be why certain fighters gain P4P kudos, despite having thinner ledgers than some of their peers.

In the context of the OP, I think the use of the word "aesthetics" could be seen as akin to assessing a boxer by way of the "eye-test" (or by appearances).

 

You mean that someone who looks fluid and nice but clearly isn't very effective would pass the "eye-test"?

That is not how I've seen the word used at all and is certainly not how I would use it.

 

What actual fighters get a lift in people's rating since they were "aesthetic"?

 

I fully agree actually.
I was probably too simplistic with that sentence!

 

That's not what I conveyed, at all.

 

Not as important as who he beat and lost to, when these matches took place, the score cards of the matches, and film to review just to make sure the judges didn't rob anyone.

 

Ok. Then we seem to agree.

 

This. The aesthetic eye test is particularly defective in evaluating a guy like Monzon.

 

Agreed. It’s about evaluating their effectiveness, and assessing their specific strengths and limitations.

 

Khan looks like a million bucks till he gets KTFO. I keep forgetting that he's going to get KTFO.

 

I like Khan, but he's a bit like a poor man's Hearns. Or a more average income man's Terry Norris.

 

True that. But also unorthodox boxers often look more brutal and punishing, and therefore, more exciting. I'm thinking Froch as an example.

 

So does he. That's the problem lol

 

I hope so. I think we might use the term 'eye-test' a bit differently.

For mine, boxers can look very good in winning performances (and so look effective, by default) against the right opposition. They can even build a reasonable looking ledger at a certain level. Some might even get touted as the next big thing. To me, these are the boxers, who might have passed the eye test but have not really been tested at the higher (or highest) levels yet.

As the competition levels rise and become narrower (assuming a rise in the ranks), the pressure rises, we might see boxers unravel; be made to look ordinary; performances and results become inconsistent or, in the case of a truly rude awakening, we can see their serious career (or fans' expectations of it) more or less come to an end. Or, we watch the potential unfold in full realization.

When I think of a boxer, who passed the eye test, but ultimately couldn't pull everything together, I think of someone like Joan Guzman.