Vladimir Klitschko has fantastic skills as a boxer. Paulie Malignaggi has shown really good skills. Vitali has very good skills also.
Well, as far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong here, boxing is STILL about skill!!!!! OMG!!!! You can delete this thread now that we've come to this shocking and unexpected conclusion!
For me, the big difference in styles is what makes boxing interesting to watch and talk about. Its great to watch guys be mobile and avoid getting hit sometimes just as its interesting to watch guys go to the inside and bang a bit. The sport needs all kinds of styles to remain interesting and provoke discussion about who might win a bout.
how old are you then ? Im only 28, is it true that boxing in the 40's, 50's, 60's was more like ballet, like a beautiful performance art where heads never clashed and boers apologised for being a little rough joker
Yep..........In the good ol days fighters never roughed each other up......clashed heads....threw low blows...........It was almost like watching ballet........!!!!!!!!!....................Shape up you berk !!!!!!!!
They claim they know boxing yet don't know the most promising prospect the sport has seen since Tyson
Boxing was about winning a fight with fists. Unless your a physics graduate stop trying to sound clever by proclaiming you know what the "sweet science" is.
Shane Mosley , Ricky Hatton, Joseph Calzaghe, Floyd Mayweather and some of Wladimir Klitschko's work for such a large man is very skilful.. I understand that we had some amazing talent in the 50's and 60's Ray Robinson and Cassius Clay are two fine examples , but for todays mega money standards still bring us some great technical athletes.. A lot of junk , but still a lot of talent............