Whats wrong with "being boring"?

If you win you win that’s all there is to it…

 

I don’t think it necessarily lower’s a fighters rating. But emphatic and impressive performances DO help. Joe Louis, Mike Tyson and Jack Dempsey are a few examples where such performances made a huge difference in how they were revered and remembered.

 

Patterson too… both W and L

 

Because it’s a sport that most people watch for entertainment, being boring kind of takes that part away even if you have appreciable skills.

 

I don't care how a fighter fights if it's against a worthy opponent; Even a matchup like Hopkins vs Winky Wright can be a very intriguing chess match. I just can't generally watch them stink out the joint against a lesser opponent I know they're going to beat easily.

 

It’s a good question.

There’s def. a line to be drawn between plying your skills in the most effective manner and how exciting it might or might not appear in the process of doing same.

However, right or wrong, the boring attributes of some fighters might be interpreted as them not having put out as much as they could’ve - and that includes failing to secure a more definitive victory even though it might’ve appeared that they were capable of same.

There’s probably a reasonable intersection of so called boring fighters and fighters who fight safety first in varying measures - but safety first is still a strong argument, particularly in view of the long game (= not just one fight but a whole career’s worth in boxing).

Jack Johnson might not have been exciting in every match and probably could’ve won quite a few of his fights more easily - but then, he came out remarkably unscathed - in physical and, it seems, neurological terms.

 

Nothing wrong with being boring as such.
Even Muhammad Ali had his share of boring fights, especially as he aged.

 

Nothing. The goal in the boxing match is to win. And if you win, especially against top opposition, you did your job. A lot of excting fighters haven't even won a title. Effectiveness is way more important than flashiness.

 

Good example there Pugs, with Jack Johnson.
His style certainly helped him, both active and later life.

 

Jimmy Young was boring to some, interesting to others. The real problem with Jimmy Young is he doesn't have much substance unless you turn a few of his prime losses and draws into wins. Yes he did win against Foreman and Lyle. But he lost to Ali, Norton, Ocasio, Dokes, Cooney before he was ancient . Shavers stopped him when he was a novice and draw with him when they were prime.

People who rate Young very highly really have to overturno or excuse a lot of results.

 

Does depend a lot on what you actually achieve but you don't want me to be remembered like Lawrence Okolie as of now or Henry Akinwande.

 

Sure, barely nicking the points, in and of itself is merit based - to crystallise the point we could nominate fighters who might still be deemed boring to watch even when they have won clearly.

There are some who view Monzon as being not so exciting and perhaps leaning toward boring - and that assessment includes fights in which he pounded out clear decisions and perhaps even some of his ultimate stoppages.

Bottom line is that superficially perceived aesthetics don’t necessarily speak for a fighter’s sheer, effective qualities.

I say superficially because, for at least one example, I think (as many others do) that Joe Louis was entertaining due to the outstanding technical purity of his executions in their own right - which also translated directly to his effectiveness as a fighter.

 

Some wildly underrated names there.

I don't know how slipping punches and setting up returns is boring. I don't know how looking, acting, and moving like a GD golem is boring.



TBH, we see kids come up and people pop off over them like they're special while downplaying or outright disrespecting their closest analogs. People would not shut the **** up about Hrgovic there for a while. Croatian Frankenstein is super different from all the other FrankenEuros who came before is he? Oh but now that he's lost we can all see how Valuev but smaller he is? Wowee. Getme?

I like Valuev, I'm not putting him up against Dempsey or anything but in the world of who is and isn't a good boxer I'll take Valuev over Fil all day. He has the size for that style and Fil does not.

So really, it's **** all to do with how they look. **** all to do with how they fight. **** all to do with even their results.


I can see how a fan of Mike would see Wlad as boring. I have no clue how dudes pine over Lennox Lewis then call Primo, Vitali, Valuev, and Wlad boring. No clue how a Mike Tyson fan finds Tua or Patterson boring. Heaps of Marciano fans and Dempsey fans argue all the ****ing time about how shitty the other guy actually was like as if those jamooks have worlds apart styles.


Just blows my mind, but don't youse guys worry none. There will be another 6'6" 240ish fella how keeps distance with a jab, hugs close, and opens up combos late. Am I talking about Primo? Is that allusion to Wlad? Maybe Lennox? Maybe Vitali? Is it Valuev? How about Fil? ... Do all of the above work? So how are you excited by one but not the others?



Sidenote- I don't think Fil is trash just got overhyped for the skills he displayed.