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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by walk with me, Oct 3, 2009.


  1. marzblkman

    marzblkman Active Member Full Member

    691
    0
    Jun 23, 2007
    As a trainer, I enjoy watching the technical aspects of boxing. To people that call technical action boring, its probably because they've never been inside a ring or don't understand whats really going on.

    Sometimes a lack of action comes because simply one fighter has taken away what another fighter does effectively.

    I suspect this thread is in response to none other than Mr Mayweather. I personally enjoyed the Marquez fight. The casual fan or Mayweather hater loves to speak of the size difference. But Mayweather in that fight pretty much used defense and effective counterpunching to win. Amazing considering his layoff
     
  2. ricardinho

    ricardinho Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,241
    3
    May 17, 2009
    If you ask most fans of any sport if they favor offense over defense they will answer-- Yes.

    I take a philosophical view towards fighting in general. Defensive fighters react to an offensive fighters actions. In other words an offensive fighter creates. This to me implies that a defensive fighter allows his opponent to control the match.

    Bruce Lee's fighting style focused on countering your opponents attack with an attack of your own. Which is why puncher vs counter puncher matches are usually the best fights to watch.
     
  3. BrooklynMumin

    BrooklynMumin HOPKINS A " G " Full Member

    6,797
    4
    Aug 17, 2008
    Cause these people know **** about boxing therefore cannot appreciate the sweet science, as a matter of fact someone like willie pep they would have considered a horrible fighter, not to mention prime cassius clay what he did to floyd patterson was very boring:roll:
     
  4. raiderjay

    raiderjay Active Member Full Member

    742
    0
    Jan 7, 2007
    It depends on how a "technician" goes about his craft. Sugar Ray Leonard was a technician, yet his fights could be extremely exciting. This was due to the fact that he would box 90% of the time, but would go for the kill if he hurt and or tired his opponent out.

    The same could be said for Sugar Ray Robinson, and a few other greats. People hate on guys that fight like ***inaggi and Gayfeather because they rarely or if ever go in for the kill. ***inaggi just doesn't have the physical power to do it and Gayfeather doesn't have the balls to do it. Granted Gayfeather has a few high profile KO's on his resume, so putting him in the same breath as ***inaggi is a bit much. But you get the point.

    In the end it is not just our little boxing community or arm chair fans that want action, rather it's almost the entire boxing world that wants blood and action. Look at all the current and retired fighters that showed up for the Gatti-Ward trilogy. In my estimation there were more professional fighters at the Gatti-Ward fights (which were really two B/C level fighters) then at Gayfeathers last three fights combined. Why? They, like the general population like to see action.

    It's the same difference as people that like to see high scoring soccer matches or a high scoring shootout in American football. There is just more excitement and bang for your buck.
     
  5. BrooklynMumin

    BrooklynMumin HOPKINS A " G " Full Member

    6,797
    4
    Aug 17, 2008

    except against Hagler:good
     
  6. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,036
    27,681
    Jul 26, 2004
    Actually i think its the exact opposite.... i think it IS the small hardcore fans that truly appreciate the science of boxing.... imo.

    But the answer is the same and is simple.... people want to see two warriors clashing in a brutal fight, they like to see knockouts, the like to see a dynamic victory by a dynamic champion.... they dont appreciate as much an impressive skillset used and perfected to the T as much because it doesnt satisfy that hunger for brutality...

    IMO

    I like both, though i admit my favorite fighters are the ones that come to destroy you.... but have perfected their technique in doing so. Vargas, Morales, ect....

    But i can watch a chess match anyday, as long as it is a certain level... Judah vs Spinks, Hopkins fights, Mayweather fights (besides the baldomir fight i like watching mayweather fight) ect, ect.... but i cant blame someone for not appreciating it as much as a guy like Kirkland who comes to destroy you.
     
  7. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,291
    23
    Sep 21, 2006
    I dont have a stigma against technical boxing, I just hate it when people confuse running with the sweet science. For instance in the Calderon/Mayol fight, Calderon fans were saying what hes doing is what the sport is all about....WRONG, the name of the game is "Hit and dont get Hit" not just one or the either. I can respect fighters who try to avoid getting hit but to fight back with the most minimal purpose is just downright bad for the sport. When boxing was first invented does anyone here think the intent was to score more for those who dodge and block the other guys shots?
     
  8. raiderjay

    raiderjay Active Member Full Member

    742
    0
    Jan 7, 2007

    Don't get me wrong, I think Hagler won the Sugar Ray fight (by a point), and I usually favor the aggressor, but you didn't understand my statement about Leonard. I wrote that Leonard would go for the kill when he had his opponent hurt and or tired out. He at no point had Hagler hurt or tired. That was apparent. That was also why Leonard was an all time great. He knew what his advantages were and applied them when appropriate.

    In fact that fight shows the difference in greatness between a Tommy Hearns and Leonard, Sugar Ray knew he was the smaller, faster fighter and knew it would be suicide to slug with Hagler. Tommy on the other hand always had a tough time using his head and out boxing those that he could.