Do you prefer Mindless Slugfests or Tactical Battles of different styles

Everyone prefers a slugfest.

When two sluggers get together and decide to "box," people are disappointed.

When two counter-punching boxers decide to go for it and unload on each other, and one scores a dramatic KO, everyone is excited.

People prefer conclusive endings. Any time you go to the cards, and leave the official result in the hands of three people who didn't take the blows, problems can arise.

Better to leave it to the two people fighting to settle matters.

I always root for a KO. Always. (Everyone else secretly does, too, whether they care to admit it or not.)

 

Preferably some what of a blend. Two club fighters knocking the hell out of each other is appreciated but a high level war is what is really entertaining. Not that I don't recognize and appreciate the hit and not get hit fighters it just isn't as thrilling.

 

A mix of both in one fight is the best!

 

Each fight on it's own merits. Depends on alot of different things.

 

Depends on why it's a slugfest and why it's a tactical battle. If the slugfest is merely a byproduct of poor boxing skills then, although on the face of it these fights can be engaging, the lack of skill turns them into a parody. On the flip side, if a tactical 'chess match' type fight involves two fighters setting traps for each other to try land the knockout blow, then the battle of wits can prove enthralling.

But assuming the intent is positive and the skills are evident in both scenarios, then of course a good dust up is the better option of the two...

 

100% this. My favorite type of fight, by far, is a pressure guy vs. a boxer with some lateral movement. Both are effective enough to keep the fight interesting and both are gassed enough during the last couple of rounds for it to be a battle of wills.

 

Depends on how the tactics are being used. Is it defense to set up offense? A counter puncher like Wright vs. Tito can be masterful and thrilling. Or is it defense to make damn sure no fight breaks out like Rigo? Hard pass.

I love a good war, don't get me wrong, but a decent to high level of action WITH strategy is the ultimate fight.

 

Chess!

 

Prefer a an astute tactical fight, with two contrasting styles

Mindless slug fests do not really interest me.

 

Not too dissimilar to asking if you like a hack and slash b move or a well thought out suspenseful thriller with a good twist in the tale.

 

It Also depends on the fighters to....if it’s a Tyson you expect too see him go for the kill and that is what you wants to see.... if it’s a FMJ you expect too see him figure someone out and pick them apart .... the athleticism, speed and power of RJJ , the warrior mentality of a Holyfield.... I can go on and on with examples but that’s what makes boxing so great

 

Even in chess ... the winner is decided by the participants in the match.

They don't run out of time in chess and then three chess judges decide who they thought played better and award that person the win.

 

Definitely the former.

 

That's actually how they invented statistics (probability theory). Pascal's friends had wagers on a game of chess that was unfinished.