Why Is There Such A Stigma Against "Technical Boxing" From The Hard Core Fans?

Pick up a book called Boxing An Illustrated look at the history of the fight game
By Peter Brooke-Ball.

I aint talking **** I am just saying you may find some answers in this book regarding your question, Honestly I will shoot what I recall from the book, back in the old days, those kinds of fighters just were not respected the idea of the sport is also entertainment.
There is nothing wrong with being smart and taking less shots than needed, but it will cost you in fighting like that, either respect fans and or money.

in fact holding and running was not ever respected back in the old days. and I think that tradition is still passed on through the trainers we have today though we have this new age of hit and dont get hit......

We still have some trainers who have been around for a long time teaching the old school way of fighting, and those guys learned from people who were alive and well back in the days where fighting like a *****, got you treated like one.

 

Technical boxing is fine. In fact it's great. BUT, when it comes at the expense of action then it is bad. Boxers who are more interested in avoiding action than scoring punches are dull.

Imagine if there was no shot clock in basketball, and a guy just spent the entire time dribbling the ball, running around the court. He's afraid that if he passes or takes a shot the other team might score, so brings the action down to a bare minimum by avoidance. Is that a smart strategy? Yeah, but it's also boring as heck.

Imagine if you were watching gymnastics, and the gymnast knows that if he falls off the balance beam, she will lose points. So she just stands there does no flips, no handstands... and hopes that her opponent falls when they get to go....BORING!

Being overly cautious leads to a dull event. It may also lead to a victory, but I sure as hell don't have to watch it. And if I don't watch it, advertisers won't pay to put it on tv. For the sake of boxing, we need good high action fights!

 

"Hardcore fan" is hard to define since you have people that follow the sport closely, yet have no objectivity at all. Floyd puts on a technical masterpiece, but Vitali runs like a *****; or Vitali moves great for a big man and Floyd runs like a *****. Etc.

In other words, good technical boxing is used as a compliment or an insult depending on some peoples' view of the fighter.

 

deal:deal

Floyd and Paulie both catch hell because of their personalities....and then their technical style which both have 2 different concepts of technical fighting btw......just makes public opinion dip for them....

 

The simple answer is, they aren't hardcore fans. They don't understand the skill and technical side of the sport and would rather watch punch bags like Gatti & Margarito.

 

It's a minority but a loud one and because it's loud you get the impression it's a majority - but it's not.

Hardcore fans do appreciate pure technical boxing. Those who don't are generally haters who project their own mistakes and indequacies on the braindead brawlers they identify to. People like that don't appreciate boxing, technical or not so technical, they just use boxing as an exutory to dump their daily frustrations.

 

I dont think your correct its just that haters have big ****ng mouth and usualy dont even know WTF there saying as long as its hating

 

One could understand the skill and technical side of the sport and still appreciate a boxer like Gatti for various reasons (sorry, I don't have the investigative skills to understand what could possibly bring someone to like Margarito) and, btw, Gatti wasn't totally skilless.

 

No, Gatti wasn't skill-less. But he still went life-and-death with club-fighters, and while I love to see a war once in while as much as anybody, as a fan of the real asthetics of the sport, I'd like to see use some defense and skill rather than have his head used as a heavybag like Margarito.

Gatti wasn't quite as bad as Margo in respect of being a punchbag, but he was pretty close. If I want to watch a war and guys take shots, I want to see a real technical war aswell, like Barrera v Morales or Marquez v Vazquez.

 

Thats pretty much it, guys who fight in a conservative manner are never going to gain the respect they deserve in casual circles.

Its generally the opposite within the more hardcore boxing fan circles. Someone comes along with handspeed and boxes and moves a little and people climb all over the bandwagon (Andre Dirrell for example, who hasn't done anything yet has substantial support to beat an established champion on the grounds that he is flashy). WWM is obviously making direct reference to Floyd but i don't think thats a very objective example as people abuse Floyd and his style not purely because they dislike the conservative technical style but because they don't like him as a person.

 

I don't dislike technical skills but I do dislike boring fights. Some guys use skills to make for exciting fights, some to stop anything resembling a fight breaking out. Against Baldomir Floyd Mayweather threw on average about 20 punches per round, and I really don't see how anyone can find anything positive to say about fights like that.

 

Gatti going life-and-death was the only way he knew and he did it with utmost drama and charisma. That's why people loved him and that's why he was such a big draw everywhere he went. Emulates like Michael Katsidis on the other hand just don't cut it.

Margarito is practically unwatchable, I agree. Any suggestion that he would cause problem to Mayweather is risible: too slow, too wide, too off-balance to be a problem. Against Mayweather he would throw and miss and get countered repeatedly and, as his frustration grows, he would throw a lot less and get countered a lot more. A complete 120-108 shutout.

Barrera, Morales, Marquez and Vazquez are quite watchable, I also agree though their fighting styles took/is taking their toll on them.

 

Technical boxers come in all shapes and sizes. They run the gammet from Bernard Hopkins to Paulie Mallinagi to Grady Brewer.

My favorite type of match up is one that puts a good stalker, brawler, or swarmer against a technician on the same level.

For example, let's take the version of Winky that fought Taylor and put him in the ring with the version of Pavlik that beat Taylor. Offensive Monster vs Defensive Master: is there anyone who wouldn't get excited about that fight?

 

i dunno...you have a point. But i dont think its fair to isolate those who appreciate brawling/slugging as compared to those who prefer running, avoiding, etc.. A fan maybe considered hardcore even if his preference is either of the two. This got me thinking...what are the basis/criteria for a fight to be awarded "Fight of the Year" ?? My guess is it probably represented the first. Nice topic TS!