Why is "the sweet science" so underappreciated?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of case studies in the General Forum...people who ought to know better, and simply watch and discuss the sport too much to be termed casual - but who refuse to acknowledge its finer points and seem to want only the same visceral satisfaction out of the experience that comes from watching NASCAR. You know, Arreola fans.

 

How can you not be an arreola fan? Dude is a hoot

 

yeah you're probably right IB, not good.

 

For un-self-consciously foul-mouthed Mexican-American sluggers, give me David Diaz any day.

He's wittier (usually encasing his F-bombs in an astute observation, rather than just vomiting forth a string of random expletives) and a bit more adept at the sweet science (though he's no Sweet Pea himself).

It's kind of like the difference between George Carlin and Andrew Dice Clay, to run with your precedent of trans-medium metaphor. :good

 

Best analogy in the whole thread, I like it.

 

Never heard of Segoiva.
While I'm sure Transformers 2 is crap. Citizen Kane is overrated.
I have not read Any Harry Potter book or for that matter seen any movie. I also have not read or seen the movie 1984.

 

To answer the question as to why the "sweer science" is under appreciated. I think we need to understand why brawling is appreciated.
Brawling brings back to our primal instincts. We can more easily idenitfy with the brawler than the "boxer".
Think of the most popular boxers in history. Were or are they "boxers" or brawlers? My guess is that most are brawlers.
It is also easier to be a brawler. The human body is made to go forwards. It is easier to see ourselves as the brawler than the "boxer".
Basicly what I'm saying is that the brawler is eaiser to idenitfy with than the "boxer". Therefore we apperaecte the brawler more than the "boxer"
This is not to say that "boxers' can't be appreciated. Some fans like myself apperacate "boxers" more than Brawlers.

 

****, don't get me started on that place. I went on there the morning after the Ward/Green fight to check the round by round and came across some ridiculous threads about Fitzsimmons/SRR vs Ward already

 

:rofl:rofl

 

why do people vote for Bush instead of Gore. think about that

 

The truth is, the average fight fan wants to see the phenomena of human battle, they're less interested in seeing a stoic systematic break down of an opponant. It undermines the essence of the general perception of a good fight.

In saying that, I love the sweet science.

 

Don' wanna be admittin' that about Segovia with music lovers, r, or CITIZEN KANE with film buffs.

 

I still have no clue who Segovia is.
Yes I've seen Citizen Kane at least 3 times maby more. (oh it uses "deep focus", Orsen Wells is a Guness who made people think Martions were invading New Jersy.) Enough to form an informed opinion. The Movie was a head of it's time in 1941. This dose not make it untouchable. It's a false god kind of like Ali, Robinson and Duran. While there greatness can't be questioned ligitment debate as to how great they are and comparing them to others is treated as blasphmy. I think debate and thought out opinion is healthy regaurdless of what conclusion one comes to. To stifle it is not.

 

There are some examples on here as well when it comes to certain fighters at least. Mendoza, anarci, PowerPuncher ... don´t blame them mostly. Everybody has his favs and once you got it you take their posts on those with a big grain of salt.

 

cause gore was an obvious nit wit with a ego to match.

I appreciate good boxing, but after a couple of rounds of it I want to see some damage done.