Boxing is ENTERTAINMENT— Boxers Have an Obligation To ENTERTAIN— Boring Boxers, @$#% Yourselves!!!

I think a lot of the boxers who are a bit boring in the ring are smart enough to cultivate a persona outside the ring to bring the fans in.

 

I think Floyd was sort of the triumph of marketing over substance. You know how bad those Superman movies are? Nobody likes them but they still make a billion dollars. Sometimes great marketing can save a poor product like bottled water or the power glove. Alternatively, he could have won over the casual band wagon type fan who only cheers for the biggest winner. They don't actually love Floyd. They don't even understand boxing and can't name any other boxers, but they love winning. They don't care how the game is played or who it's played against. It's all about the 0 for them. Another theory is that his haters bought all his pay per views hoping to watch him lose. Then there's the possibility that his longtime rivalry with Manny Pacquiao boosted both of their sales because of interest in their eventual clash.

But then again, I have no idea why Kim Kardashian, Donald Trump, or The Big Bang Theory are so popular.

 

When it's all said and done, skills pay the bills. Brawers have never filled the seats like skilled fighters.

 

I don't buy this Floyd was boring talk. Take the Pacquiao fight for instance, not a great fight but that can't be pinned simply on Mayweather.

Mayweather v Canelo to me was a masterclass by Floyd in controlling the ring and doing what he liked against a bigger younger opponent.

Boring or just a different way of fighting?

 

People that have disposable income buy into the spectacle and Mayweather being undefeated. Also, the opponent was selling too. Do you really think all those plastics in the crowd appreciate Mayweather's sweet science? Nah, it's just the "big event". But when you watch the crowd in a Tyson/GGG/Pacquiao fight, whether they are there to be part of the cool kids or not doesn't matter, once they get there, they get excited for real.

I agree that some people will find him entertaining but any time I talked to people who actually paid for his PPVs how the fights were and they never sounded too excited. It was like "yeah, it was alright, Floyd dominated but that's about it". Out of principle, I'm not paying to watch a guy that takes no risks even when the opponent is clearly outmatched.

 

This is what I'm saying. We never got to see the best of Floyd Mayweather, Guillermo Rigondeaux, or Erislandy Lara. They are always holding back. It's like having a really fast car you never take out of second gear.

 

They certainly do not.

Just like you do not have an obligation to watch them.

 

You think these were action fights? Hmm, interesting...

 

There is so much wrong with this post. Where to begin. From the top...

"Anybody who willingly watches boxing... deep down thirst for blood and for somebody to be having a seizure on the floor. " - Well, you have only confessed that you do. Not myself. Probably a lot of people this doesn't apply to.

" The excuses of "oh i watch for skill" is a lie " - Sounds like somebody who has never put in the grind. Sounds like somebody who simply personally can't relate to that notion.

" if you want to watch an activity that really needs skill then watch archery or tennis. " - But I don't play tennis or shoot bow and arrows myself, so I can't relate to that at all. I am entertained by what entertains me. I don't choose to find certain things entertaining. I either am, or am not.

" The aim of fighting is to render the other person unconscious or just unable to continue, " - This definition does not apply to the sport of professional boxing.

 

They weren't action fights. If you read his post, he said they were examples of one fighter stalling and evading, being negative, with the other fighter coming forward aggressively trying to press the fight and keep it interesting. That clearly applied in the Clotty and Mayweather fights. Although, I thought that Algieri and Vargas actually tried to do stuff. He might also have cited Canelo vs Lara, or Ortiz vs Scott.

 

I think he has a point, even though he might overstate it here or there.

I don't want somebody to have a seizure. I don't wish for any permanent damage to result from a match. But I always go in hoping for a knockout. That's the equivalent in boxing of baseball's home run.

I don't watch just for skill. I watch for the violence. But I want my violence to be as skilled as possible. The more skilled and high paced it is the more I enjoy it. Everybody loves a good slugfest like Rios vs Alvarado, but what we crave the most is the best version of that which is Corrales vs Castillo or Pacquiao vs Marquez 4. The more skilled the action the better it is, but skill without action is even more empty than action without skill.

I like reading, listening to music, watching movies, and looking at art. Those skills I find impressive by themselves. But I look to boxing for something else. What I seek from boxing is a primal conflict that speaks to the primitive instinctive animal side of me, that part that remembers my ancestors hunting and warring for hundreds of thousands of years and isn't satisfied with sitting in a cubicle all day. It's aroused and excited by the destructive fury, channeling the savage passion for bloodshed which we cannot safely release in our civilized world into catharsis and purgation of our repressed emotions by projecting them onto combatants.

Of course it does. A boxing match is a symbolic struggle for dominance. The knockout is absolute proof of physical superiority, by rendering your opponent completely passive and submissive to your will.