Better to be "boring" or to win?

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

what about Vitali?

 

I think people are more critical when the fighter has certain obvious advantages yet they hold back for the sake of just being very cautious or for the fear of loosing. But when it comes down to being remembered as great or popular, it is usually the ones that are both successful yet entertaining that win the popular vote.

If you have certain advantages along with good solid skills, I don't see why you cannot win while still putting on a bit of a show. In any sport, people like to be entertained while they watch their team/party win; heck, there are people that don't watch certain sports, but will watch it if there is a particular athlete they like to watch - its usually the more entertaining athletes that will attract the casual fan. Who didn't like watching Michael Jordan doing what he did with skill but at the same time with style? How about Magic Johnson? When I have grand kids and I tell them about one of the best running backs I've ever witnessed playing, I am not going to mention Emmitt Smith, I am going to say Barry Sanders. For a heavyweight boxer, I am not gonna say Lennox Lewis but Mike Tyson. The athletes who were successful yet entertaining in my mind will be usually be remembered by most in general than those who did not entertain. That is my opinion.

Now lets bring up the topic about Money. There is an arguent that some say "well, they do what they do to win, even if its boring because they have to secure their future". My point is, if you have talent and great enough to win, BUT can also entertain, you have the possibility of making twice as much more money than someone who only wins but puts people to sleep. If you are an attraction, if you will, people who want to be entertained will want to watch you for the entertainment value, yet on the other side of the coin, the hardcore, more technical buffs (fans) will also want to watch you for the science of the sport. Its a win win situation.

 

About the same, although at least he doesn't clinch as much. Neither one of them impresses me very much. I think if they didn't have their size, they wouldn't even be talked about. Much like Valuev.

 

It's all about winning. Those who find defense boring are noobs who came to boxing from garbage like WWE or UFC, might as well go back to human chicken fighting if you want reckless no skill fights.

 

Of course it's better to win. But people naturally don't want to watch boring fights.

I thought Lewis got a bad rap for being "boring" anyway. He had plenty of explosive KOs or brutal beatings of opponents. He had some stinkers in there, but just about everyone does.

Younger, pre-Steward Lewis was often too sloppy for my liking. I didn't like that ugly, winging right hand. His right hand seemed better as he got older.

 

I agree, outside of regular boxing fans, no one knows who they are. Why? Because they aren't exciting enough to generate any buzz outside of the regular boxing world, regardless if they were to be russian, chinese, or american.

 

Would you rather be a multi-millionaire or some chump cleaning the toilets at McDonalds? tough choice... Much like your question.. win or be boring.. gee.. too tough to say.. I can't decide..

 

depends on how boring
sven ottke and derick gainer come to mind as boring in my eyes
but casual fans might find hopkins or even mayweather boring
personally I like action fights but I also enjoy watching supuerb demonstrations of skill and strategy even though they might not be as action packed

 

Winning is the primary goal of the game.

As for the boring thing...I think it's supremely frustrating to watch a fighter essentially carry another fighter. As examples, Lennox Lewis not slugging it out with David Tua is understandable. Tua is a huge puncher with an iron chin. Take a risk and Tua could end up the new heavyweight champion of the world. Lewis kept busy in this fight, he threw some nice hard shots. You could tell by his demenor that he was trying to win, and stick to the plan.
Wlad vs Ibragamov was another story. Wlad carried the bum. Wlad could have simply knocked Iggy into next week, but he decided not to. Even Emanuel Steward was telling him, "If you don't knock this guy out it's going to look bad". Steward was right. Wlad looked disinterested, and seemed to phone this one in. I bet he lost a lot of fan support on that night.

Other instances of boring fighters are the people who are more interested in running than throwing punches. I can't fault them for doing this, if it is the only way they can win, but don't expect me to pay or tune to see this either.

 

Winning, I think winning should matter over the money actually. Look at floyd, he tries to consider himself "the best." yet only takes the fights with big money. :/

 

I would never negatively criticise any boxer for being boring, as long as he is winning.

Whether I like it or not is another matter.

 

Very true, just get the job done.