BoxRec

FIRSTLY AS A SPORT BUT WE ALL STILL LIKE TO BE ENTERTAINED . AND AS FOR AMATEUR I VERY RARELY WATCH IT , ITS TO ME A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPORT . A BIT LIKE RUGBY UNION AND RUGBY LEAGUE

Agree with you Mark but I also enjoy fights such as Katsidis vs Earl, Froch vs Pascal, Gatti vs Ward, you know, proper tear ups.

DOESMT HAVE TO BE THE FIGHT ITSELF THAT ENTERTAINS , I LOVED NASEEM HAMED AS A KID , FROCH AND HAYE ARE ENTERTAINERS IN A SIMILAR WAY NOW

I like to be entertained but I watch sport to see people win, if they do it in spectacular fashion then it's a bonus but I don't sit there expecting a wild multiple knockdown slugfest.

Boxing is a Sport unlike the way something like a Action film is marketed or maybe ufc so its not fundamentally about entertainment but winning, I personally Enjoyed Wlad's performance on Saturday Night so wasn't bored but some people don't like his style and thats fine too.

I saw the Pascal fight on Friday which was Very entertaining but a totally different style to Wlad.

Think of it like Football, there are some teams who win week after week that are considered boring to watch. Chelsea were considered boring a few years ago when they won back to back Premierships.

Wlad made $40 million dollars in 2008 so he aint about to start doing anything different, its up to the other Boxer to beat him with his style, he's hardly difficult to work out, just not so easy when facing him in a ring.

I watch to be entertained but I'm not sure I see a difference between watching it to be entertained or watching it as a sport. I can appreciate a guy like Hopkins putting together a strategy and fighting to a gameplan. I can also appreciate a guy like Wlad sitting behind a long jab and protecting his chin while building up a solid resume. That said, if given a choice between a talented fighter, who likes to engage and has talent, or a negative fighter who has talent I'll always watch the guy who engages, no contest.

Spot on, you cant compare the Hopkins-Pavlik bout to this weekend, a different spectacle entirely, and IMO a much better one. That said, it is up to both men to make the fight exciting and Chagaev failed to disrupt the winning gameplan.... little bit like when people criticised F1 in the Schumacher era - it fell on the other guys to catch him and make it a race, he wasnt about to slow down for them.

MatthewS wrote:. little bit like when people criticised F1 in the Schumacher era - it fell on the other guys to catch him and make it a race, he wasnt about to slow down for them.

While were on the subject of boring can anyone tell me why people like car racing? To me it has to be the one of the most boring things to watch. Round and round and round and round...... At least Wlad leaves someone battered, bloody, and on the canvas.

crusader wrote:

MatthewS wrote:. little bit like when people criticised F1 in the Schumacher era - it fell on the other guys to catch him and make it a race, he wasnt about to slow down for them.

While were on the subject of boring can anyone tell me why people like car racing? To me it has to be the one of the most boring things to watch. Round and round and round and round...... At least Wlad leaves someone battered, bloody, and on the canvas.

Because it takes unbelievable skill and fitness(only fighter pilots and astronauts suffer more stress on the body), also I love ultraviolent accidents especially when the car bursts into flames. Motorcycle racing is even better.

edit - It pisses the eco-nazis off as well so it's an even bigger bonus.

it's the old punk rock question - do you watch a group because of the technical skill of the guitarist or the instinctive thrill of the music ?

give me Manny over Wlad any day (or the Sex Pistols over Santana)

Maybe the word should be excited rather than entertained. For a boxing fan any quality boxing will entertain (such as Wlad on Saturday) but non-boxing fans and boxing fans alike can be entertained and excited by all out slugfests like Gatti v Ward even if they display less skill.

Of course both at once is best like Barrera v Morales or Diaz v Marquez.

I personally would'nt apply the terms "Great tactics" and "Great skills" to someone like Wladimir Klitschko. To me, there is a world of difference between watching a Klitschko 12 rounder and a distance fight involving someone like James Toney or Bernard Hopkins, it's a world of difference. In my opinion, entertainment is a part of sport and it's not exclusive to it, which seems to be the premise of your thread. The two go hand in hand and whilst some fights are exciting affairs and others are more strategic, it all falls into the catogory of entertaimnet. The only difference with boxing, when compared to other forms of entetainment, is that you don't know how exciting a particular fight will be, although we perhaps have a good idea beforehand, because we know the style's of the fighter's taking part. Put it this way, if you go to see a comedian or band, there are certain things that you would expect from the outset. The comedian is expected to be funny, the band is expected to play well etc etc, but with boxing the performance level unfolds as it happens and so it could be a dull fight or an explosive one, but it's still entertainment either way.

I watch it to be entertained boxing is the most entertaining sport around when you get an exciting fight its great like Clottey-Cotto was so exciting it looked as if someone could of been stopped at any moment which gives it that excitiment factor but i also watch it as i love the sport of boxing and want to learn as much as i can about the sweet science and to see little tricks people do and try it in sparring or fights