Might depend on your definition but some of the classic fights that get discussed as slugfests have way more strategy and finesse than others.
Eubanks-Benn is the kind that I prefer: a high-action, back and forth fight where a brawler is trying to impose his will and his style of fight on a boxer-puncher who is trying to use his skill advantages but isn't afraid to let his hands go.
Slugfests are a fact of life to boxing,...it's where the rubber meets the road .if you're so effete so as to not appreciate a slugfest due to it's "wildness" and "sloppiness", then you don't need to be watching boxing.
That's a pretty rude (and stupid) thing to write. People love the sport for different reasons and have different preferences about what we appreciate in fights and the traits that we admire in boxers. To each his own. I don't see why people feel the need to judge the preferences of others.
For me Gatti - Ward .. not because they were not fun .. not because the guys were not brave but because both were very mediocre fighters that HBO pimped because they were white and got some ratings .. the problem is other far better fighters missed the opportunity and it just left me flat ..
slug·fest **(slŭg′fĕst′ n.*Slang 1.*A fight marked by an extended exchange of heavy blows.
Just to help out😊. Doesn't say it has to be sloppy. The only one mentioned I consider sloppy was Lyle foreman. I still loved it but I prefer better technique.
I enjoy a good slugfest as much as the next guy, but love tactical battles with a lot of adaptations. Slugfests can also be quite tactical too.