Great Article by Holyfield
-
Impractical Poster
- Middleweight
- Posts: 7636
- Joined: 18 Jun 2014, 07:28
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
I understand him, but this is a big generalization. There are still great matches all the time with back and forth action. It's just more frustration from someone who wanted more from a fight the magnitude of Floyd/Manny was. And I agree with him on that. Once Floyd is out of the picture, I believe things will get a bit better.
-
Freedom2013
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:35
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Referees need to put an end to boxers clamping their opponents' arms. Holding is supposed to be illegal, yet Mayweather and Ward have always gotten away with it.
And judges should not award rounds to fighters for running.
And judges should not award rounds to fighters for running.
-
Freedom2013
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:35
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Most of us like skillful boxers hitting their opponents while not taking punches.fergusg wrote:If you want to watch “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots” slugging it out, then watch Box-Nation’s “Total Combat” or the UFC.
If you want to complain about skilful fighters hitting their opponents, whilst not taking hardly any punches in return, then boxing isn’t the sport for you!
But we don't like boxers clamping their opponents' arms and running. Does anyone enjoy seeing that?
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
fergusg wrote:Mauling and grabbing your opponent is not deemed as a serious offence, which means that boxers will obviously employ that manoeuvre as part of their gameplan.Freedom2013 wrote:Most of us like skillful boxers hitting their opponents while not taking punches.fergusg wrote:If you want to watch “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots” slugging it out, then watch Box-Nation’s “Total Combat” or the UFC.
If you want to complain about skilful fighters hitting their opponents, whilst not taking hardly any punches in return, then boxing isn’t the sport for you!
But we don't like boxers clamping their opponents' arms and running. Does anyone enjoy seeing that?
If fighters’ aren’t going to be penalised for it, then they will employ that tactic.
I don’t enjoy watching fighters grabbing, but if I was in the ring and needed to “protect myself at all times”, then I’d grab my opponent if need be.
Who told you it wasn't a serious offence?
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
lol.
enough with the 'floyd was running'! he wasn't running, he stood in front of him all fight and circled out when he'd had enough of being on the ropes. Got on his bike a bit in the 12th mind, but it's pure revisionism to say the whole fight was Floyd grabbing and running!
enough with the 'floyd was running'! he wasn't running, he stood in front of him all fight and circled out when he'd had enough of being on the ropes. Got on his bike a bit in the 12th mind, but it's pure revisionism to say the whole fight was Floyd grabbing and running!
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
I tend to agree. But other's saw it a different way. So now there is two points of view.Mensa07 wrote:lol.
enough with the 'floyd was running'! he wasn't running, he stood in front of him all fight and circled out when he'd had enough of being on the ropes. Got on his bike a bit in the 12th mind, but it's pure revisionism to say the whole fight was Floyd grabbing and running!
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
fergusg wrote:How many times do you see fighters get penalised for grabbing?Ricky_ wrote:fergusg wrote:Mauling and grabbing your opponent is not deemed as a serious offence, which means that boxers will obviously employ that manoeuvre as part of their gameplan.
If fighters’ aren’t going to be penalised for it, then they will employ that tactic.
I don’t enjoy watching fighters grabbing, but if I was in the ring and needed to “protect myself at all times”, then I’d grab my opponent if need be.
Who told you it wasn't a serious offence?
Answering a question with a question would suggest you'e just decided to draw your own conclusions.
I'm disappointed in you fergus, for someone who types posts like a robotic troll that can only comprehend facts from sources who's credibility seems determined by whether or not it fits your agenda.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Mensa07 wrote:lol.
enough with the 'floyd was running'! he wasn't running, he stood in front of him all fight and circled out when he'd had enough of being on the ropes. Got on his bike a bit in the 12th mind, but it's pure revisionism to say the whole fight was Floyd grabbing and running!
He certainly wasn't engaging in a fight. The last time i seen Floyd throw a punch was at Victor Ortiz who was looking at the ref. Floyd's so cautious to commit to anything even sets up his sucker-punches with left hooks
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
A question none-the-less. Fergus is all out of answers, maybe now you shutupfergusg wrote:Judging by your response, it's seems that you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is?Ricky_ wrote:Answering a question with a question would suggest you'e just decided to draw your own conclusions.fergusg wrote:How many times do you see fighters get penalised for grabbing?
I'm disappointed in you fergus, for someone who types posts like a robotic troll that can only comprehend facts from sources who's credibility seems determined by whether or not it fits your agenda.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Freedom2013 wrote:Referees need to put an end to boxers clamping their opponents' arms. Holding is supposed to be illegal, yet Mayweather and Ward have always gotten away with it.
And judges should not award rounds to fighters for running.
this.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
That question wasn't so rhetorical, as an answer isn't clear, because a ref penalized Wlad in his recent fight and forced him to significantly limit his holding.fergusg wrote:Judging by your response, it's seems that you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is?Ricky_ wrote:Answering a question with a question would suggest you'e just decided to draw your own conclusions.fergusg wrote:How many times do you see fighters get penalised for grabbing?
I'm disappointed in you fergus, for someone who types posts like a robotic troll that can only comprehend facts from sources who's credibility seems determined by whether or not it fits your agenda.
Last edited by ikorolev on 07 May 2015, 10:45, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
fergusg wrote:It’s nice of you to provide an example of your limited vocabulary.Ricky_ wrote:A question none-the-less. Fergus is all out of answers, maybe now you shutupfergusg wrote:Judging by your response, it's seems that you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is?![]()
![]()
![]()
Thanks for that!

-
Impractical Poster
- Middleweight
- Posts: 7636
- Joined: 18 Jun 2014, 07:28
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
So, boxing isn't for Holyfield? LOL He's the reason I got into the sport in the first place.fergusg wrote:If you want to watch “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots” slugging it out, then watch Box-Nation’s “Total Combat” or the UFC.
If you want to complain about skilful fighters hitting their opponents, whilst not taking hardly any punches in return, then boxing isn’t the sport for you!
Floyd fans really lash out when their boy is criticized.
-
Bard of Boxrec
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13113
- Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Thank God for GGG and Kovalev I guess.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Because you don't know boxing very well you can't differentiate the difference between make 'em miss & make 'em pay & make 'em miss & run away.fergusg wrote:Holyfield was supporting the idea that fighters should be encouraged to adopt a forward moving trajectory and be rewarded for effective aggression, but I believe that boxing was called the “sweet science” for a reason.Impractical Poster wrote:So, boxing isn't for Holyfield? LOL He's the reason I got into the sport in the first place.fergusg wrote:If you want to watch “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots” slugging it out, then watch Box-Nation’s “Total Combat” or the UFC.
If you want to complain about skilful fighters hitting their opponents, whilst not taking hardly any punches in return, then boxing isn’t the sport for you!
Floyd fans really lash out when their boy is criticized.
Fighters should be rewarded for implementing effective defence, such as making your opponent miss and then making them pay.
My criticism is not of Holyfield per se, but I don’t believe that boxing should be a one-dimensional sport.
The masses might want to see Hagler-Hearns, Gatti-Ward type slugfests, but that's only one piece of the proverbial jigsaw puzzle, because highly-skilled defensive fighters should be appreciated also.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
I bet this debate was really popular in 1926 when Tunney beat Dempsey.
-
Impractical Poster
- Middleweight
- Posts: 7636
- Joined: 18 Jun 2014, 07:28
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
In a sense, one could say that Floyd is now a one dimensional fighter. The best one there is, but still.fergusg wrote:Holyfield was supporting the idea that fighters should be encouraged to adopt a forward moving trajectory and be rewarded for effective aggression, but I believe that boxing was called the “sweet science” for a reason.Impractical Poster wrote:So, boxing isn't for Holyfield? LOL He's the reason I got into the sport in the first place.fergusg wrote:If you want to watch “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots” slugging it out, then watch Box-Nation’s “Total Combat” or the UFC.
If you want to complain about skilful fighters hitting their opponents, whilst not taking hardly any punches in return, then boxing isn’t the sport for you!
Floyd fans really lash out when their boy is criticized.
Fighters should be rewarded for implementing effective defence, such as making your opponent miss and then making them pay.
My criticism is not of Holyfield per se, but I don’t believe that boxing should be a one-dimensional sport.
The masses might want to see Hagler-Hearns, Gatti-Ward type slugfests, but that's only one piece of the proverbial jigsaw puzzle, because highly-skilled defensive fighters should be appreciated also.
Holyfield was the quintessential fighter. But, I kinda think he is off the mark when it comes to boxing in general. There are still great all round fighters who are willing to take some to give some. He, like the majority who watched the fight, is just irritated with the lack of engagement that a fight of this magnitude should have had. It was a major let down.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
Punching and moving is what boxing is all about, but the move where a guy throws a punch and then steps in and wraps up his opponent before he can counter feels a little more like a workaround of the rules than terrific defense. I think it's the latter that bothers people.
If a guy throws a punch and moves there is a counter to that, cut off the ring and put him on the ropes. If a guy throws and then steps in and wraps you up, what can you do really? I know some might say just throw punches, but you try it when a guy as big and strong as Wlad ties you up....
If a guy throws a punch and moves there is a counter to that, cut off the ring and put him on the ropes. If a guy throws and then steps in and wraps you up, what can you do really? I know some might say just throw punches, but you try it when a guy as big and strong as Wlad ties you up....
-
Freedom2013
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:35
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
With a fair ref, Wladimir should have been disqualified for what he did in the Povetkin fight, and Andre Ward with a fair ref would have been DQed for his deliberate headbutts against Kessler.fergusg wrote:Wladimir does the jab and grab during every single contest and rarely receives points deductions. Just watch the Alexander Povetkin bout (where he only loses a single point).ikorolev wrote:That question wasn't so rhetorical, as an answer isn't clear, because a judge penalized Wlad in his recent fight and forced him to significantly limit his holding.
-
Impractical Poster
- Middleweight
- Posts: 7636
- Joined: 18 Jun 2014, 07:28
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
With all the prefight chatter of Floyd dropping sparring partners and, I believe most expected at least a little more from him. Sounds like he did a lot more in sparring than he did in the fight.
I enjoy skills, it's not as if I don't. Take Crawford for example. He could opt to sit back and be defensive and stink up the joint the whole fight. But my man has some dog in him. He's just cut from a different cloth than Floyd. Floyd is a timid fighter. And seeing as how he is a great marketer and the highest paid athlete in the sport, people are going to tune in to see what he is all about. And performances like that, that are billed as a fight of a generation, will just leave a bad taste in people's mouths and is just no good for the sport.
I enjoy skills, it's not as if I don't. Take Crawford for example. He could opt to sit back and be defensive and stink up the joint the whole fight. But my man has some dog in him. He's just cut from a different cloth than Floyd. Floyd is a timid fighter. And seeing as how he is a great marketer and the highest paid athlete in the sport, people are going to tune in to see what he is all about. And performances like that, that are billed as a fight of a generation, will just leave a bad taste in people's mouths and is just no good for the sport.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
this.cfang wrote:I bet this debate was really popular in 1926 when Tunney beat Dempsey.
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
... and hundreds of thousands of casual viewers who watched maybe their first fight in a few years will say: "If this is the fight of the century, no way in hell will I watch regular boxing".Impractical Poster wrote:With all the prefight chatter of Floyd dropping sparring partners and, I believe most expected at least a little more from him. Sounds like he did a lot more in sparring than he did in the fight.
I enjoy skills, it's not as if I don't. Take Crawford for example. He could opt to sit back and be defensive and stink up the joint the whole fight. But my man has some dog in him. He's just cut from a different cloth than Floyd. Floyd is a timid fighter. And seeing as how he is a great marketer and the highest paid athlete in the sport, people are going to tune in to see what he is all about. And performances like that, that are billed as a fight of a generation, will just leave a bad taste in people's mouths and is just no good for the sport.
-
punchoutsb
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5842
- Joined: 16 Sep 2009, 01:05
Re: Great Article by Holyfield
So much this. Boxing hasn't really changed, just the location where the fanboys can get all their pent-up aggression out.cfang wrote:I bet this debate was really popular in 1926 when Tunney beat Dempsey.