Like speed, movement, rhythm, precision? Forget the skilled slicksters...

yup pretty much ..

some time thought in side our heads don't get communicated correctly to the out side world and is often perceived as ******ed,, This one of those cases.

 

I don't agree, Decebal. Hard punchers are very popular. Arturo Gatti has been 5 times in the fight of the year, he was not slick. Think of Mayorga. The guy is able to get some big fights, because fans like wars. Miranda is popular, Pavlik is popular. Even Andrade is popular, the fight is on Showtime because of him, not Bute. Andrade may have had problems to find his place, but that's more because he did not fight amateur. Think of Gamboa. Not very slick, but very hyped.

One of the slickest boxer of our time was Mayweather, and people hated him. How about Malignaggi? Maybe the boxing world is separated in two: those who likes good boxers and those who likes wars.

 

...they're not popular on ESB, laffie. They're popular with most casual fans, though, granted. :good

 

Well, ok, you may be right. I have a solution: Bute will hit Andrade like a mad man, so everyone will be happy.

 

Personally, I will be happy if Bute gets out of this with a W in a fair fight, because one thing's for sure, Andrade will make him fight the way he's never had to fight before, whether he wants to or not! Bute shouldn't look to go toe to toe with Andrade, that would be madness; no one can get away with doing that and win, not Kessler, not Calzaghe, not anyone. Not even Diaconu!:admin

168 lbs might not like the way Bute fights, but so what? Bute should give his all against better fighters than Andrade, I think; he shouldn't risk long-term career injury or become a spent force against Andrade of all people! My £0.02.

 

laffie and decebal - it's debates like you guys just hammered out that a lot of others could learn from.

well done.

 

Boxers with smooth skills are very overrated here on ESB, particularly when they are still unproven prospects (e.g. Gamboa) or yet unproven beltholders like Dawson, etc., about which we don't know or are still unsure whether they can take a punch, sustain pressure or a bit of both both from a decent fighter who can fight and take a punch too. On the other hand, iron chinned tough fighters with a high workrate and a good punch, but fewer boxing skills (like Margarito) or fast, powerful punchers with a good chin (Pacquiao) are underrated, being described as "average, nothing-special B level fighters" (Margarito) or "limited and one-dimensional" (Pacquiao). It turns out that that average B level nothing special Margarito is capable of gving A level performances and that limited one-dimensional Pacquiao is the best fighter in the world!

Now, laffie is right, most of the time, a good top world class smooth-skilled fighter with proven chin who proved he can take pressure will beat a fighter with fewer boxing skills, no matter how tough or iron-chinned or active the latter is, but not always, and even when the toughie beats them, they are still underrated.

This is because fans of the "Supernatural" smooth-skilled fighters, described by the threadstarter as "dancers", get credit for everything they do, yet the toughie not only doesn't get credit for walking through a lot of hard punches to apply pressure and break the other guy down, but they get in fact derided for it! Now that is nonsensical. That is a talent like every other (speed, balance, ring-intelligence, etc.), and there's no reason why it should be valued less. The threadstarter, I think, is right about this, but not 100%, because of what laffie says.

The threadstarter would want a very good boxer with plenty of great boxing skills to always go life and death, toe to toe, with the toughie, to prove how tough he was, even if he could beat them confortably just by boxing and minimising risk. But as laffie says, that is nonsensical. Why the hell should the boxer do that? Why fight against a toughie (who can fight in no other way) in a way that gives a clear advantage to the toughie, when you have other, safer options? To put your health at risk, risk losing, etc. just to prove your toughness? Why not turn that on its head and say this: if the toughie was good enough, he'd force the boxer to tough it out, but he's not, so why should the boxer give away the advantage he has just to prove how tough he is, when the toughie is not tough enough to force him to do it?

But the threadstarter also has a good point and there's a reason he posted the Malignaggi picture, I think. If you aim to steal rounds when the going gets tough the way Malignaggi does, by "running", flurrying ineffectively to catch the judges eyes and staying way clear out of trouble throughout the fight, when the other guy has in fact hit you less but hurt you more than you did wth him, why should you be given the win and why should you be lauded as a fighter, when you should really stick to the amateur version or to dancing ? Malignaggi didn't hurt N'dou or Ngoudjo more than they hurt him, and yet he won! Now that is wrong! Boxing is supposed to entertain the fans, give them something to get excited about, and for that you need to fight, when the going gets tough, not just box trying to stay out of trouble and hope to win an SD because you pitter-patter the other guy in the face a couple of times, ineffectively! Boxing is about hurting the other guy more than he hurt you! If you are not willing to do that, don't become a pro! You need to fight if you are not winning confortably by boxing, even if that means you are liable to get KDed or KOed! That's what fighters do - they fight!

But, I think the threadstarter is wrong when he says Bute, for example, isn't a fighter, because he is risk averse. If he fought the way Malignaggi does, then, sure, he'd not be a fighter, but just a "dancer". But since Bute did stop both Berrio and Joppy, and was not far off stopping Bika too, you cannot say he's not doing the business. He is! He is fighting and entertaining the fans, as laffie says! He's laying on the hurt, and doesn't get helped by the ref who stops a fight after a couple of weak flurries Calzaghe v. Manfredo style either!

And here's where I agree with laffie but disagree with the threadstarter:

Why should a boxer with good boxing skills fight in the way that suits the toughie to prove his toughness if he can beat him comprehensively by boxing? Sure, if he is behind on the cards or if it's very close and the boxer realises his boxing doesn't give him a clear advantage over the toughie, then he must be prepared to go toe to toe, not just hope that the judges will save him. He must be prepared to lay it on the line for the win, even if he knows that the toughie will get the better of him if going toe-to-toe is all he does. He needs to box AND fight, not just box.

So, about Bute v. Andrade: Bute will mos likely be forced to fight Andrade toe to toe, but if he can win confortably by boxing and staying out of trouble, hurting Andrade more than Andrade hurts him, he should certainly do that. However, if he finds himself in a Malignaggi type situation, he should not do what Malignaggi does, but he should be prepared to fight and take punishment, really going for it! But he shouldn't go toe to toe just to prove how tough he was against a guy he should be able to beat by using good boxing skills, who isn't tough enough to force him to go toe to toe. Instead, he should take care of his health and only revert to such tactics in a very close fight, which hopefully will only happen against a better fighter than Andrade. Bute should go toe to toe with Kessler, in a close fight, if that's what he needs to do to win; he should give his all, take punishment and give it all, even if he can get hurt in doing so, all for the win. He shouldn't do that against a lesser fighter like Andrade, IF he can beat him CONFORTABLY just by boxing.

Phew....that's all I think about that!

 

Hehe Decebal, you gave it all. How would you describe your fight against your keyboard? Were you dancing on the keys, or fighting toe to toe with them?

 

Simple fact of the matter is, people don't jump from their seats and go ape**** because ****in' Mayweather juked and made a guy miss. They do however get up and rage when one like Margarito valiantly works his way through a flurry of punches to get inside to do body damage. This is just an example of course. You get the point. I've seen these reactions (in reference to both fighters mentioned) first hand, I should point out. But hey, do forgive me for not being a fan of boring fights.

 

At the end, it depends of what you like in boxing. I can appreciate a good strategy and a good defensive. I don't find it boring, as long as the fighters try to attack each other. Of course, a knock-out is the most exciting thing in the sport. But a ko against a weak opposition doesn't get me excited. Anyway, a boxer against a puncher is a classic event and I suppose we'll both watch Andrade-Bute!

 

It doesn't look effortless, does it, so I guess I'm a slugger-type poster!

 

:think The Boxing stuff was an excuse to put on a dance clip that he likes.
Why not just put a ...'watch this clip,its good'.... thread in the lounge instead of trying to frame it in a bogus Boxing context?:huh

 

I think he was trying to suggest fans who preferred slick boxers to fighters toughing it out were gay.:conf

Lame but kinda funny, I thought!

 

Yep,that was the tenuous context,but i think he just wanted to show that clip and needed a cover story.
Ive seen it done before on here.A spurious intro to make you watch something unconnected.
Psychology.