Best HW fight in 2016?

Dave Allen v Jason Gavern.

 

I thought Breazeale vs Mansour was highly entertaining back and forth battle ,you had knock down s and both guys were rocked through out in a fast paced fight ending in 7. A fight i think Breazeale would win almost always bc heavy shots add up in the long run .

 

It has been a terrible year in the heavyweight division. Povetkin vs Stiverne will most likely be the best fight.

 

This content is protected

 

Are we talking about how good the fight was, or its importance?

Browne-Chagaev is a decent shout in any case of course, goes to show what a bad year 2016 was. Other candidates:
Wilder - Szpilka (not a good match-up but it turned out to be an entertaining fight)
Ortiz - Jennings (decent fight, impressive performance from Ortiz)
Parker - Takam (was not a great fight, but could be an important one)
Pulev - Chisora (I wouldn't plumb for this, but some might)

Joshua - Martin was joke, and Joshua - Breazeale far too one-sided for me to add to the above.

 

This. And we were expecting at various points: Fury - Klitschko II, Joshua - Klitschko, Wilder - Povetkin, Joshua - Parker

 

Again making threads seem more difficult then they are and this one is REAL easy to understand . Werent we just talking about comprehension ? lol

 

The fight hasn't happened yet ,the TS is asking what is the best fight that happened so far in terms of what is the best fight so far that took place this year .

 

Again you are picking a fight when there is none.

I asked a perfectly reasonable question and it wasn't directed at you at all.

A good fight depends on both entertainment and importance.

There are jolly entertaining scraps at the local gym between two overweight guys that are not great fights because no one cares, and there are important fights which are not great fights because they turn into borefests.

 

Yes but if thats the case he wouldn't have Browne vs Chaegav ,why would that be more important over any Joshua or Wilder fight . The thread simply asked whats the best fight so far not why it was a let down,which it really wasnt beyond Fury vs Wlad not happening , true boxing fan will know a good fight , i have posted mine which is FAR from sucking.

 

You can only blame the fighters on most of those not happening. The promoters did their jobs to make the fights.

 

Because it was actually a highly entertaining fight with a great comeback, rather than a predictable one-sided beatdown.

Mansour - Breazeale was a decent scrap too, I don't disagree. And it still had some importance as the winner got a title shot against Joshua.

All this goes to show that the "goodness" of a fight depends both on the quality of the contestants as well as the entertainment value of the fighting itself.

 

Entertainment has nothing to do with importance ,no serious fan is going to think a WBO championship is more important ,particully when Browne and a overweight Chaegav is fighting ,thats ridiculous .

The winner vs Mansour was not guaranteed a shot at Joshua ,had Mansour won we dont know if Joshua fights him ,he fought Breazeale bc he was a young ,undefeattefd guy . Fighting a 41 year old would be of no interest to him outside Wlad . The only importance of the Breazeale fight is who remained relevant ,no one expected Joshua to hold a title in 2015 nor pick Breazeale at the time of Mansour losing.

Thats what we are talking about entertaining fights not important ones so i dont know what your twisting here .

 

Point 1: We are talking about "good" fights.

You say: a good fight is all 'about entertaining fights' and 'has nothing to do' with its importance.
I say: a good fight does depend to a certain degree on its importance.

Your position is quite illogical, great fights are a lot about entertainment but they do have something to do with importance. Louis - Schmeling 1 and 2 were great fights partly because of the historical significance. If the goodness of a fight has nothing to do with importance I should nominate a scrap at my local gym - you still haven't answered this.

Point 2: Why you are so keen to criticise people? Let's have a look at the topic history.

Posters #4 and #5 (and later #12) interpreted the OP's question as being about importance while posters #2 and #3 interpreted it to be about the entertainment of the action.

Given this discrepancy, I asked the forum a perfectly reasonable question which you seem to have taken offense to. Why?