BoxRec

well we just saw three fights which were all one sided wins for fighters of the same promoter.

Given that there was a large non boxing fan audiance do you think this is bad for the sport. Nothing of the suspence of a two sided fight where ether man could win offered by football.

Furthermore when they should have been impressing the american public british fighters showed lack of corage taking on missmatched opponents.

what do people think this does for the sport?

Well it's a double edged sword, at least concerning the Manfredo fight.

Manfredo was a name that the general public knows, and not just boxing fans. To regular people who don't follow the game, they prolly figured Manfredo was a good fighter and since he was on tv in such a big way, that he would be up there with Calzaghe.

Not true at all, but nonetheless you take possibly the best British fighter and put him up against one of America's 'darlings' in Manfredo, it does bring in cash flow, does bring in some interest that usually isn't there.

It's good for the men in the business, but not so good for the sport in the long run. Fact of business, Manfredo was just a stepping stone for Calzaghe. I am sure as hell that Calzaghe probably has better sparring sessions while he is in training that he did when he 'fought' Manfredo.

A fight against a relative nobody is no good for the sport...but since Manfredo was in the lime light for a season on a television show, it did add a bit of a perk to the sport, because he was/is recognizable.

Matter of fact, more recognizable to the American public than Calzaghe. So in ways, it was a 'smart' choice to fight Manfredo, but too much a mismatch. Calzaghe beat a 'name' that most Americans knew, whether he was shit or not, and thats really all that matters for Team Calzaghe.

But for the sport? I imagine there will always be mismatches. Patterson versus Rademacher, London, McNeeley. Ali vs Coopman, Wepner. They have always been here in the sport.

The real problem is the main guys ducking eachother for smaller fights, and thats what kills the sport.

Manfredo talked a big fight but never came to compete, even at his level.
I don't care what people say, he didn't come up in shape and never tried to make a fight out of it.
Then the referee played his part in allowing him to lose without too much discomfort.

It was all a publicity stunt with richly paid athletes. There was no contest to speak of.

How can that not be detrimental in the long run ??
People will know all over the world what to expect from a Warren card.

It made everyone look badly, IMO. Casual fans who tuned in must realize Manfredo is shit. And O'Connor, fvcking hell, if things weren't tits up enough!

UFC 70 in Manchester in 2 weeks...Promising competitive, fast pace, action...Last night may have collared in a bigger audience only to show them why they SHOULDN'T watch boxing!

I think the rules of UFC are conducive to early stoppages too though. Because they don't have counts and therefor allow people who are dazed to be jumped upon the fights finnish early.

Its also ill diciplined shit and boxing is an inherantly more exciting sport.

josh fg wrote:well we just saw three fights which were all one sided wins for fighters of the same promoter.

Given that there was a large non boxing fan audiance do you think this is bad for the sport. Nothing of the suspence of a two sided fight where ether man could win offered by football.

Furthermore when they should have been impressing the american public british fighters showed lack of corage taking on missmatched opponents.

what do people think this does for the sport?

Got to agree with I'm afraid, especially the Calzaghe bout, as he is supposed to be going out to get the respect that he feels he warrants.

Calzaghe does not need the Manfredo's of this world, it does him no favours & certainly won't get him the respect he (or is that his father?) thinks he deserves.

josh fg wrote:I think the rules of UFC are conducive to early stoppages too though. Because they don't have counts and therefor allow people who are dazed to be jumped upon the fights finnish early.

Its also ill diciplined shit and boxing is an inherantly more exciting sport.

yes but boxing has been off terrestrial screens for a long time. it fell out of the public consciousness post Naz...nowadays the attention span defiict youth of today gravitate to MMA. Good point on the stoppages though. But ppl are choosing that over this thanks to shit fights like last night's.

basically boxing regulators need to be much harder for the good of the sport and force the unification fights and big contests for the fans. Bascally fighters and promoters have too much power and the fans not enough.

josh fg wrote:I think the rules of UFC are conducive to early stoppages too though. Because they don't have counts and therefor allow people who are dazed to be jumped upon the fights finnish early.

Its also ill diciplined shit and boxing is an inherantly more exciting sport.

I disagree about the ill disciplined part. The good MMA fighters are very disciplined and skillfull

Half the MMA fights I ever see these days are just guys rolling on the floor with other guys. It's a homosexual's wet dream.

The UFC when it first came was quite something. But when it changed the rules over and over again. It produced shit fighting. No wonder Liddell and Baroni are big names, they're the only guys willing to throw a punch.

But I will say, almost all martial art styles are good disciplines, but karate typically isn't a fighting style that really 'works' in a street fight. I have seen many a kick boxing champion lose when he crossed over into boxing, and I have seen a few karate instructors get their asses kicked in the local pubs.

I know a few MMA fighters, Jody Poff mostly, and he himself admits that alot of the martial arts are just disciplines, and are not that affective in actual fights. They're more about building character, rather than building fighting prowess.