Forums

Help › Forums

BOXING?

rated by 0 users
Mon, Sep 1 2014 7:50 PM (13 replies)
  • PAGES
  • 1
  • 2
  • WigerToods2010
    8,445 Posts
    Wed, Aug 27 2014 12:13 PM

    What's the point?

    Two grown adults punching each other in the ring?

    Anyone find pleasure in watching the above?

     

    Discuss.

  • gdog8
    1,356 Posts
    Wed, Aug 27 2014 12:21 PM

    Very much so , This article explains a little bit in layman's term the origin of the term the "sweet science" and how so much strategy and thought like a chess match is involved.

    why boxing is called the sweet science

  • WigerToods2010
    8,445 Posts
    Wed, Aug 27 2014 1:18 PM

    Thanks for the link. Had a read. 

    I can remember watching boxing many moons ago when you'd have 4 or 5 fighters at the top of their respective divisions smashing each other in the ring till there was blood everywhere.

    Leonard, Hagler, Thomas 'The Hitman' Hearns and so forth made for fantastic viewing.

    Before those Ali, Frazier, Foreman etc blasting each other in the mouth was a joy to behold.

    Nowadays I don't think I could name more than one or two that get the juices flowing without actually searching on Google.

  • PaulTon
    10,731 Posts
    Wed, Aug 27 2014 3:40 PM

    WigerToods2010:
    Nowadays I don't think I could name more than one or two that get the juices flowing without actually searching on Google.

    IMO todays boxers are just less entertaining or interesting to watch  in or out of the ring. There's too much holding, clinching and grinding heads nowadays.

     

  • fatdan
    3,379 Posts
    Wed, Aug 27 2014 4:13 PM

    Loved boxing through the Ali Foreman, Hagler leonard eras...even some recent fighters until about 4 yrs ago...now the winner depends on his promoter thanks to Don King ....don't even watch them anymore.

    AND MMA fans beware, few fans are aware that Don King was getting MMA fighters signed to contracts for the last 14 years...local fighter S Bergers dad is an acquaintance of mine...he was paid $3k a month to train and guaranteed 3 fights a year for $12k minimum per fight by King over a decade ago///(I'm sure those figures are most likely embellished a tad)

  • WigerToods2010
    8,445 Posts
    Thu, Aug 28 2014 1:29 AM

    Cheers for the comments fellas.

    Roberto Duran from the Leonard era was another that made for great viewing - can't believe his name escaped me earlier.

    As Mr. PT mentioned previously - too much canoodling in the ring nowadays for my liking.

    Dan's correct too - promoter's dictate everything regarding who/where their 'stars' fight. Some blatantly avoiding the most obvious and deserving opponent opting instead for a 'fall guy' that will ensure the gravy train continues along the $$$ track.

    I watch my sons tune into those UFC type events and they have utter disdain for boxing - finding it  too boring. Have to say though that a blood spattered hexagon just doesn't have the same 'ring' to it.

  • ISH47
    1,963 Posts
    Thu, Aug 28 2014 1:59 AM

    I fell out of love with boxing when all the title fights went to Pay Per View.. I'm just not going to spend my hard earned cash for that. 

    Floyd "Money" Mayweather has a habit of tweeting his paychecks out whenever someone says something about him he doesn't like.. 2 of which were for 70 and 60 some odd million dollars.. Nope, they don't need my money.

    I fully expect the Super Bowl and NCAA Championship to be PPV before long.. money grubbing ****.

  • Deedan13
    51 Posts
    Thu, Aug 28 2014 12:16 PM

    Agree with you about not spending money on it ISH, but, in the UK at least, our free-to-air fights are excellent quality. can't really see how anyone couldn't enjoy the sport

    Dan

  • fatdan
    3,379 Posts
    Thu, Aug 28 2014 1:30 PM

    Any of the Erik Morales vs Marco Antonio Barrera....Diego Corrales vs Julio Ceasar Chavez fights!


    Best fights I ever seen...close was the Juan Manuel Marquez vs Manny Pacquiao fights.

    Worst fights, any Heavyweight fight since Lennox Lewis became champion, and I liked Lennox but he didn't have any competition)...or any Bernard Hopkins fight (post 40 yrs. of age)

  • GolfingJMan
    71 Posts
    Sun, Aug 31 2014 7:00 PM

    Hey,

    WigerToods2010:

    What's the point?

    Two grown adults punching each other in the ring?

    Anyone find pleasure in watching the above?

     

    Discuss.

    I don't like it.

    My perspective on the article is that I personally believe there can be a lot of mental skillfulness and athletic displays by the many boxers, professional or otherwise.

    Depending on the viewer, boxing can be seen as a violent, barbaric sport or a beautiful and artistic display of athleticism.

    Nevertheless, I do not believe any organized activity should be extolled simply because someone combines "technical, adroit strategies" with "beautiful and artistic display of athleticism," etc.

    Many spectators are unable to see past boxing’s physical and aggressive nature, and they close their eyes to the boxers’ incredible abilities.
    (bold mine)

    I wouldn't ignore the violent, brutal nature and consequences of a thief because he skillfully organizes "adroit strategies" to execute numerous armed robberies and escapes with an "artistic display of athleticism" even if some call such activity a "sport" with similar forethought to that of chessfocus should be on what the skills are being used for.

    The author states that the "sport" is violent but then seems to try to gain approval by highlighting a similarity in boxing with a less violent activity such as chess:

    Indeed, boxing is violent, but it’s also a skillful craft that involves strategy and forethought – much like a chess match.

    To me, it seems the author is trying to cause reader's to ignore the brutal nature of the "sport" (or at least not focus on it) and its consequences and shift attention onto what some spectators would not usually be grieved about (i.e., "a skillful craft that involves strategy and forethought").

    Even though I, like others, am able to "see past boxing's" brutal nature, I choose not to ignore the consequences of that brutal nature.  Although I understand many sports activities can have health benefits but also potentially cause severe damage to the participants (esp. when participants have intent to harm, in whatever sport/game), intent to brutally render someone else unconscious for amusement ("OOOOHS!" and "AAAHHS!"), whether it is within an officially organized "sport" or not, displeases me.

    From my understanding, the "knockout game" has what I think is a similarly repugnant impetus, that is, brutality against people "for the fun of it."   More Info: [ABC News] [Associated Press]

    Other "sports" like men's MMA can be a lot more gruesome than organized boxing while I think containing similar amounts of forethought and displays of athletic abilitiesstill no pleasure for me.  I see news about even female MMA and just the thought of two women viciously fighting and one intentionally dislocating another's elbow to "win" a fight for entertainment value of the viewers (for the fun of it, artistic or not) is grieving to me.

    Many spectators are unable to see past boxing’s physical and aggressive nature, and they close their eyes to the boxers’ incredible abilities.
    (bold mine)

    Whether or not boxing, or especially MMA, is similar to chess or if one may call it scientifically sweet, I unashamedly close my eyes to such sheer displays of adroit savageries.

    JMan

  • PAGES
  • 1
  • 2
RSS