Why we overrate slick boxers when the ATG list are

This content is protected

 

If the boxer dominant and fails to produce the same spectacle that is a different topic. But I see some of your points just dont agree 100%

 

Having a beautiful style helps. Everyone likes pretty things. Men, women, children, asian, white, black, Mexican, etc.

 

A lot of people feel Hagler won that fight lol

 

Chimba you seem to know a lot about legendary fights which I respect but some of your examples are just I don't know.........

 

Most boxing fans are only in it for the aggression and the KO. These fighters tend to be more attractive then the more lay back boxers. I prefer the boxer myself because to be great it takes more then just throwing punches and hoping to hit your target. Skill actually plays apart to be successful.

 

I like Mike Tyson too. I actually liked emmanuel's most recent fight, this is the first time I ever liked one of his fights.

We can all like different things, but grace is apart of beauty. Muhammad Ali's style was moar pretty than Tyson's style. See what I'm saying?

 

yeah. i noticed that too. there is strangely a shortage of slick boxers in the ATG list when they are supposed to be the epitome of the "sweet science" according to the so-called "boxing experts" here.

 

Its a generalisation but it does make sense I'd say when you consider how both kinds of boxers look agenst different level of opposition.

A slick boxer IMHO will in general tend to look better agenst lesser opposition, even if they play defence his superior talent will clearly be on display. Fans won't care if he doesnt blow that opponant away aslong as he shows superior abilties.

A puncher on the other hand will in general(ok not Tyson) tend to need a quality opponant who's willing to exchange with him to look his best. Fans expect such boxers to inflict more damage and thats obviously harder to do if your opponant is only interested in defence.