Counter-puncher wrote:oh sorry it wasn't actually advice, just an amazingly 'vapid' to coin KG's phrase marginal comment.
I hardly think my comment was amazingly vapid, you are surely easily amazed if you considered it such.
Counter-puncher wrote:right, so lets say if brawling isn't the right style for him, but on your non-advice he decides to make the change to being a hatton-style face-firster, and he ends up losing 4 of his next 6 fights, and is left without a title, noone is interested in his fights, no TV no 'big Civic Hall' cards, that would make a change to an 'entertaining' style a great idea for him, then. would it?
I did not suggest that Haskins should completely change his style to that of an all out brawler. I would think that he could work on his current style and make it both more entertaining and successful for winning fights.
Counter-puncher wrote:out of interest when you are doing your british top 30 p4p list do you factor 'entertainment' into your many variables?
A fighter with the ability to be entertaining and win, would suggest he has more ability than a fighter who wins in a boring fashion. So I do take it into consideration, although it is far from the most important factor.
Counter-puncher wrote:One can win fights and be entertaining, it is not a choice between the two
really? you mean things in your world aren't automatically split into some false dichotomy? you surprise me.
You seemed to be suggesting that the two things were diametrically opposed. I felt I should make you aware that that was not the case.
Counter-puncher wrote:What do you have against a person wanting this sport, and the boxers who participate in it, to be entertaining? Do you think you are more cultured if you can appreciate fights that the average person would consider boring?
you can want it all you like but i still don't think you understand my point
if Haskin's own chances of winning are maximised by his current style, then not only is he unlikely to consider the entertainment aspect, but he would be stupid to do so.
Just like Witter? Witter's incredibly boring and safety first win over Corley, hindered his chances of getting big fights because very few people wanted to watch him. Witter could easily have won the fight and tried to entertain the viewers, instead he didn't take any risks against a fighter who didn't seem to have much to threaten him. In my opinion that was the stupid thing to do.
Counter-puncher wrote:you're completely within your rights to wish for more entertainment, if you want. just don't be too disappointed when boxers unsurprisingly follow their own agenda. which is generally going to be best served by them getting hit less in the head, losing fewer braincells, and tragically falling a little short in the 'horse p4p entertainment stakes'
No, it is generally in their interests to win fights and entertain. I don't see how you could not understand this point, or why you seem to be so offended by it.