BoxRec

On the state of boxing;

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/maywea ... relevance/

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.

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.

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!

Most of us like skillful boxers hitting their opponents while not taking punches.

But we don't like boxers clamping their opponents' arms and running. Does anyone enjoy seeing that?

fergusg wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:

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!

Most of us like skillful boxers hitting their opponents while not taking punches.

But we don't like boxers clamping their opponents' arms and running. Does anyone enjoy seeing that?

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?

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!

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!

I tend to agree. But other's saw it a different way. So now there is two points of view.

fergusg wrote:

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?

How many times do you see fighters get penalised for grabbing?

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.

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

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

fergusg wrote:How many times do you see fighters get penalised for grabbing?

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.

Judging by your response, it's seems that you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is?

A question none-the-less. Fergus is all out of answers, maybe now you shutup

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.

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

fergusg wrote:How many times do you see fighters get penalised for grabbing?

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.

Judging by your response, it's seems that you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is?

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:

Ricky_ wrote:

fergusg wrote:Judging by your response, it's seems that you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is?

A question none-the-less. Fergus is all out of answers, maybe now you shutup

It’s nice of you to provide an example of your limited vocabulary.

Thanks for that!

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!

So, boxing isn't for Holyfield? LOL He's the reason I got into the sport in the first place.

Floyd fans really lash out when their boy is criticized.

Thank God for GGG and Kovalev I guess.

fergusg wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:

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!

So, boxing isn't for Holyfield? LOL He's the reason I got into the sport in the first place.

Floyd fans really lash out when their boy is criticized.

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.

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.

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.

I bet this debate was really popular in 1926 when Tunney beat Dempsey.

fergusg wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:

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!

So, boxing isn't for Holyfield? LOL He's the reason I got into the sport in the first place.

Floyd fans really lash out when their boy is criticized.

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.

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.

In a sense, one could say that Floyd is now a one dimensional fighter. The best one there is, but still.

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.

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....

fergusg wrote:

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.

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).

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.

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.

cfang wrote:I bet this debate was really popular in 1926 when Tunney beat Dempsey.

this.

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.

... 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".

cfang wrote:I bet this debate was really popular in 1926 when Tunney beat Dempsey.

So much this. Boxing hasn't really changed, just the location where the fanboys can get all their pent-up aggression out.