Whats More Important: Winning Or Being Entertaining?

Winning and entertaining at the same time:good

 

agreed

 

If you win but aren't entertaining, you won't do much. If you're entertaining but you don't win, you won't do much. Winning is more important, but you can't be great if you're not entertaining.

 

As a fan, entertaining.
As a boxer, winning.

 

true.. this is the reason i became a gatti fan cuz of all of his entertaining fights.

 

A W is a W !!!

 

Being entertaining... but I'm easily entertained.

 

getting the W....In any sport (pro level) winning is the most important thing IMO

 

To a Boxer: Winning.

To a Fan: Being Entertaining.

 

Floyd's style is definitely no very entertaining, that's why he has to play the villian in order to be a PPV draw.

On the other hand, someone like Gatti, who was a great boxer but nowhere near as talented as Floyd, was popular because he was in entertaining fights but not always winning. Floyd is almost too talented: he is never very likely to lose, but a lot of his fights are boring. Maybe when he challenges himself he could produce great fights.

 

To me . . . both. So I'm not voting. :yep

You win fights like Spinks, Sahir Raheem and Calderon . . . you are trash. :deal

 

ok ok... so... i dunno man if we use Dawson as an example.. Winning isn't doing to much for his paychecks. I mean, if he were entertaining, he'd prob be a huge ppv star.