Boring and great: mutually exclusive terms for fighters?

Seems like boxing fans hesitate to bestow greatness on fighters they consider boring. They seem to be of the belief that excitement is the only true evidence of ability.

Let's take Hagler. He gets rocked and cut by a former Welterweight who had already been stopped at the lower weight but because he defeated his foe in Dramatic exciting fashion the fight cemented his legacy and undisputed greatness was bestowed upon his shiny bald head. In retrospect his tough competitive fight with a former lightweight was also added as a mark of his greatness.

By contrast a boring fighter may come around and dominate with ease but in a rather unexciting fashion and fans would suggest that he cannot be mentioned alongside the blood and guts warriors.


Can any of you name three fighters that you would consider both boring and great or are the terms mutually exclusive? Does a fighter have to go through hell in fights and lose some and come back and win and show his vulnerability before he is considered great?

Discuss

 

Just answer the question Xplosive, ya troublesome high yella cunt! Lol

 

Without thinking much

Carlos Monzon - made his mark with a long reign, not some memorable wars
Michael Spinks - Ditto, defeated great opponents but not often in dramatic fashion
Pernell Whitaker - a legend who was considered as one even before anybody could truly threaten him in the ring

 

Add Hopkins to the list.

 

I agree with the exceptions.

This statement is accurate, however, "Seems like boxing fans hesitate to bestow greatness on fighters they consider boring." They do hesitate. They are reluctant.

 

For the Last Several Years, the Winner of a "Boring", 1-Sided Fight Often Finds his Level of Competition QUESTIONED In Hindsight...Even If Pre-Fight Consensus Was, "This Guy is the GOODS", Prior to Losing a "Boring", 1 Sided Fight...

Then You Have Promoters like Bob Arum, Who Use "Boring" as an Excuse to Criminally DEVALUE his Own Fighters, ie., Floyd, Rigondeaux and Potentially Terrance Crawford...




REED:hammert:

 

Crawford by nature is an offensive and exciting technician.

 

Guys who come to mind...

Hopkins (Though, a lot depended on his opponent).

Mayweather- (Especially in the last 3 or so years of his career.)

I disagree that Jones and Whitaker were boring. Even during Roy's "boring" fights, he had a way of showing you something that was remarkable. Ditto with Whitaker.

Hopkins had a lot of fights that were just sleep inducing, even though he was a master of his craft.

Mayweather towards the last few fights of his career had the same boring predictable fight every time. Watching him go the distance with OVERMATCHED opponents like Marquez, Guerrero, Berto, and taking NO CHANCES against Pac in the biggest fight of his career has to be one of the biggest let downs ever. He had so many people on his dick claiming that he was gonna STOP Pac and never once did he even try to do anything close to that.

 

I don't really think that Hagler perfrmance against Duran enhace his reputation. In fact, I think it has the opposite effect.

 

I don't agree with this. At least, he is more of a safety first defensive fighter when he faced dangerous opposition.

 

Pernell Whitaker was hated by a lot of people who thought he was boring, I don't think any of them thought he wasn't great, though (except maybe Double L)

The opening post is some ridiculously amusing nonsense from our resident reality-bender

 

::

like vs who?

 

Reality-bender ::

 

To give you the answer you're looking for sly- no the two arent mutually exclusive and that's proven by the great floyd Mayweather who has managed to go nearly his whole career without engaging in a single properly competitive fight; an historical anomaly only rendered explicable by the conclusion that he's vastly superior to every other boxer who ever lived! All hail TBE!

 

Not a Mayweather or Hopkins agenda thread actually although to a certain extent both get underrated as a result of not being consistently exciting. It's not about those two because fans and haters alike concede that both are all time great fighters. A boxing fan has no choice but to admit this.

My agenda, if there was one, was more for a guy like Wladimir Klitschko actually. Dude has dominated for over a decade but yet people refuse to call him great. A guy like joe Frazier however is universally recognized as one of the greats although he lost to the only two great heavyweights he fought has a relatively low number of fights on his resume, but was exciting.

 

Floyd IMO was exciting to watch in his youth.

There's NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING great about Wald Pussy. Under NO circumstances was that fragile faggot a great fighter.

 

Wlad has been dominant and has fought nearly everyone there was to fight I the last 15 years. Sure he got knocked out in embarrassing fashion by both Brewster and sanders, but that was a while ago and he bounced back since then beating many punchers in the process.

 

By the way, even at welterweight Floyd has had a couple aggressive performances: hatton, Mosley , cotto , Judah

However as he got older the safety first approach became more and more prominent and that's all fans choose to remember.

 

wald pussy is a disgrace

 

Exactly ::

 

No. I addressed the agenda issue In a post a few posts above.

 

Right :mut:

 

Monzon was fuckin boring

 

Listen Shamrock, don't make me come to Connecticut and kick your Irish ass all over New England !!!

 

And had an ugly style to boot.

 

imo, the greatest fighters manage to beat great opposition while also putting on exciting fights.

 

picture Jake Matlala beating Gerry Cooney?

not happening, muggsey. clogg is 6"5 and SHREDDED

 

:hammert: