They overlap Fight is the umbrella in which both slugfests and boxing matches reside under. What do I prefer out of a slugfest and a boxing match? Depends on a lot of factors and the skill Level and action in both fights. It's NOT a simple question with one answer. It's a case by case.
Or, boxing match is the umbrella which covers both fights and chess-matches. I define it this way: after a bout, if I hear "great boxing match it was", I believe I have seen a better match-up than when hearing "great fight it was"
Yes it is, Sly. It's a continuum, we all understand that. But if you HAD to choose - what do you prefer? I prefer the boxing match - I want to see the SWEET SCIENCE on display, not necessarily a street brawl with gloves on (exciting as they may be). But of course, on the continuum, I like my boxing matches to have sustained action and drama. Peace.
A boxing match with "fighting" mixed in. If you take two boxers that never mix it up and only try to outland their opponent by a slim margin and never take risks is tedious to watch. That's why amateur boxing sucks.
The only way to answer this fairly, is to consider both extremes: Slugfest with no boxing: Foreman-Lyle Boxing Match with no slugging: Taylor-Spinks If you had to choose ONE which would it be? opcorn:
Right. The problem is people mentally take it to extremes - that a "boxing match" implies a "negative", defensive, tedious fight. And that a "fight" must discard all skill. I disagree. My favorite absolute favorite boxers " are the likes of Arguello, Napoles, Charles, Moore, Quartey, Sanchez, Nelson, Finito Lopez, Hagler, Conteh, Duran.... Those guys were exciting, aggressive, and FOUGHT - but they were ALWAYS BOXING. That perfect balance of offense and defense - being able to integrate them seamlessly - that to me is the culmination and very definition of the Sweet Science. I get excited by slugfests as much as the next guy, no doubt! I was there cheering my head off during Ward-Gatti I. I firmly believe Corrales-Castillo I is one of the best fights ever (and I happen to think that there is much more skill on display in that fight than many believe). But if I HAVE to choose - I'll take the boxing match. I want to be awed and amazed by the boxing SKILL these men possess....that's why I watch BOXING and not Toughman. And Napoles-Cokes, Arguello-Pryor, Sanchez-Nelson, Charles-Moore, Mosley-DLH I, Quartey-Espana....those are every bit as full of skill as a Whitaker-McGirt or Leonard-Benitez. I personally even find more defensive displays intriguing and can admire the technical skill there....but prefer a match with more action mixed in, sure. Peace.
Sorry but you can't have it both ways when answering this question. You see, we ALL like fights that have both high action and drama (some slugging) with great skills on display (some boxing). So in all fairness to the question you have to go to the extremes...and choose one. So with that in mind, peep my above post. opcorn:
I respect that! At least you're consistent. This is the only fair way to address your question. Gimme Foreman-Lyle. I love watching boxing skills on display...but in my heart if I had to choose...I have to choose the BRUTALITY!!
To put it into generic terms, I prefer action over intrigue. agREED with Donnybrook that "boxing match" can cover a wide variety of fights. Generally, my favorite fights are skillful slugfests. I can watch Corrales-Castillo I over and over (though Showtime did come close to testing everyone's patience at one point) or Trinidad-Vargas. Whereas boxing matches featuring action - once, maybe twice is more than enough (Cotto-Mosley and Calzaghe-Kessler being two of the more recent examples). But on the opposite side, I'd rather watch two pillow-fisted boxers ply their trade than two unskilled clubfighters flail and miss all night, fighting like they're drowning. That's IF I were forced to watch one or the other.
The problem is, you can choose the extremes in many ways too: fight: Evander Holyfield - Lou Savarese boxing match: Leonar-Benitez which one wins?
My favourite fights are Leonard-Hearns 1, Trinidad-Vargas, Corrales-Castillo for example. One has more boxing than slugging. Another has more slugging than boxing and another that has equal amounts of both. Neither Foreman-Lyle or Taylor-Spinks are among my favourite fights...but they both represent the extreme cases and so this tells me in which direction I lean....
Action level of course is important in what I prefer, as well as the technique and punching form of the fighters. It just depends on the fight....most of my favorite fights have a good amount of skill level as well as the action. For replay value, I like watching the skills. When it happens live, then a back-and-forth ugly slugfest might be more exciting, but I can watch a highly skilled fight like Toney-McCallum I many times while an ugly slugfest like Foreman-Lyle has less replay value is less entertaining to watch over again.
You've picked one of the absolute worst "boxing matches" I can possibly think of. This is the problem. Taylor-Spinks was hardly as dull and boring as it was because of the consummate skill of both participants. The point I'm making is that a Leonard-Benitez, McCallum-Toney and Calzaghe-Kessler ARE the very definition of "boxing matches." You can't take ANY match that has minimal or no action/slugging and say THAT'S the a "boxing match." Would you call Judah-Witter a boxing match? Plenty of "skill" there. :: A brawl, everyone understands. A "boxing match" is another story because of the connotations placed upon it. I'll take a true boxing match any day, even if there is no one being knocked down or hurt or cut or whaling away at each other. :dunno: Peace.
That's about where I'm at. Not trying to be some elitist or purist, but as a boxing fan it's sometimes annoying that "boxing match" refers to only the boring, defense-first, extremely tactical, dull bouts (where skill is sometimes overrated anyway)...as if that and only that really represents true boxing skill at its best. :dunno:
Fights like Taylor-Spinks, Judah-Witter etc, aren't 'boxing matches' to me, they're just fights where at least one guy isn't committed enough to take the chances he needs to to win. Ponderousness isn't skill. Like someone mentioned - McCallum-Toney, THATS a boxing match. DLH-Mosley, Barrera-Marquez, Holmes-Witherspoon, etc. When both men are fully committed to winning your guaranteed action no matter how high the skill level is. The question really translates to, 'would you rather see two guys with skill but little commitment or 2 guys with commitment but little skill'? Maybe its jumpers for goal posts romanticism, but put that way Id probably rather watch the bums go all out.
