Page 1 of 1

What’s more impressive

Posted: 02 Dec 2021, 17:32
by Foggy
Which impresses you more whilst watching boxing:-

A) A boxer with a chin of steel who never seems hurt even after heavy shots

B) watching a KO artist Ko his victims

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 02 Dec 2021, 17:39
by margaret thatcher
the kos, there is a more spectacular visual element to them and more work goes into getting them. jumps out at me more . we watch highlight reels of knockouts but rarely as much just guys taking shots

although it depends on the situation too. if there's a huge mismatch for example, sometimes the ko actually leaves a bitter/disgusted taste instead, like why the f@ck did that need to happen

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 02 Dec 2021, 19:10
by dr_devious
I've always had maximum respect for the chin of steel types

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 02 Dec 2021, 19:24
by oogiebe
More impressed with a granite chin.

would prefer to watch a KO artist do his thing.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 01:41
by KiwiRider
Neither.
I like a boxer throwing all sorts of combinations, moving like a dancer, in and out of range ans making the other guy hit air.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 03:28
by Giancarlo
The problem with some of the granite chin types is they rely on it too much and as their career starts to wind down it can get painful watching them shipping heavy repeated blows that are likely to have a negative effect on them later in life.

Ali, while not having the cast iron chin of someone like Chuvalo, could take a lot of shots to the head and no one can tell me that it didn't effect him after he retired. Yeah, yeah, it was Parkinsons etc and nothing to do with boxing. I'm not so sure.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 04:10
by mickey1975
I prefer a pure boxer.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 04:14
by DrDuke
KOs are definitely more spectacular than somebody standing his ground after receiving shots.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 05:31
by dan28uk
Definitely ko better to watch as we all look back on the highlights of them but it’s definitely impressive having a granite chin although sooner or later most get wobbled or stopped at some point

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 07:55
by polecateddy
dan28uk wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 05:31 Definitely ko better to watch as we all look back on the highlights of them but it’s definitely impressive having a granite chin although sooner or later most get wobbled or stopped at some point
McCall never tasted the canvas, although possibly he was floored by Greg Page in sparring. Although I may be misremembering that. Although if McCall had fought as many times as Chavez maybe he would have had more dicey moments. Chavez didn’t get floored until the Frankie Randell fight. Had an usually thick skull they said.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 11:14
by JamesPhilips
polecateddy wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 07:55
dan28uk wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 05:31 Definitely ko better to watch as we all look back on the highlights of them but it’s definitely impressive having a granite chin although sooner or later most get wobbled or stopped at some point
McCall never tasted the canvas, although possibly he was floored by Greg Page in sparring. Although I may be misremembering that. Although if McCall had fought as many times as Chavez maybe he would have had more dicey moments. Chavez didn’t get floored until the Frankie Randell fight. Had an usually thick skull they said.
McCall had a ridiculous chin and a huge bowling ball shaped head. I bet his skull was like 2 inches thick

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 12:24
by Ruthless-RKO
Golovkin had them both..

He was quite the total package..

Power, accuracy, iron chin, so he used his face as a defence. KO power. Could box and jab, cut the ring off as well.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 13:23
by KiwiRider
mickey1975 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 04:10 I prefer a pure boxer.
Same, that's why I liked peak Khan, despite his personality, which is saying something.
A pure boxer with minimal chin is way more exciting to watch than a guy taking big shots repeatedly.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 13:39
by mickey1975
KiwiRider wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 13:23
mickey1975 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 04:10 I prefer a pure boxer.
Same, that's why I liked peak Khan, despite his personality, which is saying something.
A pure boxer with minimal chin is way more exciting to watch than a guy taking big shots repeatedly.
I don't think Khan is a pure boxer. He's just stupidly fast. He's not a bad bloke, either. Just not the most intelligent.

Re: What’s more impressive

Posted: 03 Dec 2021, 19:43
by TheLeprechaun
KiwiRider wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 13:23
mickey1975 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 04:10 I prefer a pure boxer.
Same, that's why I liked peak Khan, despite his personality, which is saying something.
A pure boxer with minimal chin is way more exciting to watch than a guy taking big shots repeatedly.
I wouldn't say Khan was a pure boxer at all. He was a guy with elite hand speed who threw a lot of flurries that a lot of fighters just couldn't handle in the end. His strengths were his raw athleticism and speed of hand. You wouldn't describe him as a technician like the likes of a Carlos Monzon or Juan Manuel Marquez kind of guy would you?