15 Most Exciting Warriors of the Ring

[Panamaniac]

Don't ge me started...

...If I want to see people not hit each other, I will sit in a park somewhere...

I have, on occasion, seen more people hit each other while sitting on a park bench, than I've seen while watching the action inside a boxing ring.

Here's a formula for futility (non-violence) inside the ring: Two defensive counter-punchers of opposite (orthodox vs southpaw) stances and below 20% combined KO ratio. Stepping on each other's toes is inevitable while landing clean shots is purely accidental.

Watching to see a fight breakout from such a match, is tantamount to staring at the night sky in hopes of seeing a shooting star. You'd have better luck at a hockey match...

[Panamaniac]

Nothing exciting about that. Berbeck was a scrub opponent solely there to be executed. Are you saying the only thing exciting about boxing is when someone gets brutally KTFO? I don't watch boxing because I get off on violence, sorry. I find boxing compelling for other reasons.

Poet

I wouldn't say it's the only exciting thing, but the KO (technical or straight) is the most exciting outcome. Why? Because it's conclusive, not subject to the biases of judges. It's boxing's big score, like the homerun in baseball or the touchdown in (American) football. I also find a toe-to-toe match that goes the distance exciting.

When you say you don't watch boxing for the violence, it reminds me of guys who say they subscribe to Playboy for the articles. I could be wrong, but I think the object of boxing is to - with one's fists - inflict bodily harm on one's opponent. If that's not violence, I don't know what is. That said, would you care to share the other reasons for which you find boxing compelling?

[StarshipTrooper]

I wouldn't say it's the only exciting thing, but the KO (technical or straight) is the most exciting outcome. Why? Because it's conclusive, not subject to the biases of judges. It's boxing's big score, like the homerun in baseball or the touchdown in (American) football. I also find a toe-to-toe match that goes the distance exciting.

When you say you don't watch boxing for the violence, it reminds me of guys who say they subscribe to Playboy for the articles. I could be wrong, but I think the object of boxing is to - with one's fists - inflict bodily harm on one's opponent. If that's not violence, I don't know what is. That said, would you care to share the other reasons for which you find boxing compelling?

Violence in boxing is only the means to end not the end in and of itself. I watch boxing to see the skill, the tactics, the technique of the fighters as well as the action and the exchanges. The violence of the means is only incidental to me. I would rather see a fight like Leonard-Duran I that has 15 rounds of torrid action but no knockout (or even a knockdown) than a war like Hagler-Hearns that goes three rounds and ends with a brutal knockout. I'd also rather see a technical affair like Leonard-Benitez over a quicky like Hagler-Hearns.

Poet

[jabsRstiff]

Hagler-Hearns was better than IMO Leonard-Benitez because it was NOT what was expected. Hagler was not the slugger people think he was and he realized he had to put it all on the line or stand out and get tattooed by the taller, longer, and faster foe. Hearns had no choice but to fire back against the physically stronger guy with a concrete chin who was in full freight-train mode.

Benitez hoped to outbox Leonard and Ray hoped to be too fast for Benitez....and they both fought accordingly. While it was a brilliant and pretty tense fight, it did not offer the thrills and shock that hagler-hearns did...and also had a premature stoppage.

[SBleeder]

Perhaps being able to beat most of your foes with just a left jab and some hugs makes you quite skilled?

If those foes are good fighters, than absolutely.

[SBleeder]

I wouldn't say it's the only exciting thing, but the KO (technical or straight) is the most exciting outcome. Why? Because it's conclusive, not subject to the biases of judges. It's boxing's big score, like the homerun in baseball or the touchdown in (American) football. I also find a toe-to-toe match that goes the distance exciting.

When you say you don't watch boxing for the violence, it reminds me of guys who say they subscribe to Playboy for the articles. I could be wrong, but I think the object of boxing is to - with one's fists - inflict bodily harm on one's opponent. If that's not violence, I don't know what is. That said, would you care to share the other reasons for which you find boxing compelling?

Most decision victories are extremely conclusive.

A knockout, on the other hand, doesn't always mean that the better boxer won.

McClellan was thoroughly out-boxing Jackson when Jackson landed the big right hand.

Did Jackson win the fight? Of course. Did he deserve to? Absolutely. But was he necessarily the better boxer? Did he out-box his opponent? No, not really.


The object of boxing is to win the fight... of course, that involves punching the opponent, which is certainly violent. But fights are also scored on the principles of defense: Slipping a punch, which is non-violent, should be rewarded as much as the violent act of landing one.

[jabsRstiff]

Most decision victories are extremely conclusive.

A knockout, on the other hand, doesn't always mean that the better boxer won.

McClellan was thoroughly out-boxing Jackson when Jackson landed the big right hand.

Did Jackson win the fight? Of course. Did he deserve to? Absolutely. But was he necessarily the better boxer? Did he out-box his opponent? No, not really.


The object of boxing is to win the fight... of course, that involves punching the opponent, which is certainly violent. But fights are also scored on the principles of defense: Slipping a punch, which is non-violent, should be rewarded as much as the violent act of landing one.

McClellan KO'd Jackson...after what had been an even affair (in their first fight).

Are you thinking of Jackson's fights with Norris or Graham?

If so, Herol Graham is aboslutely not a better fighter than Julian Jackson. He never won a big fight in his life. He certainly was a helluva lot slicker than JJ, but Jackson's power enabled him to accomplish things Graham never did...which includes sending Graham to the hospital with one single blow.

[The Surgeon]

Most decision victories are extremely conclusive.

A knockout, on the other hand, doesn't always mean that the better boxer won.

McClellan was thoroughly out-boxing Jackson when Jackson landed the big right hand.

Did Jackson win the fight? Of course. Did he deserve to? Absolutely. But was he necessarily the better boxer? Did he out-box his opponent? No, not really.


The object of boxing is to win the fight... of course, that involves punching the opponent, which is certainly violent. But fights are also scored on the principles of defense: Slipping a punch, which is non-violent, should be rewarded as much as the violent act of landing one.

McClellan beat Jackson....twice.
I love a puncher and a KO is the best thing in boxing. Sure i can appreciate a great tactical match or a slippery defence but Punchers are the exciting ones for the most part

[rightsideup]

I would like to throw mathew sadd muhamands name out there as a exciting fighter.

[SBleeder]

McClellan KO'd Jackson...after what had been an even affair (in their first fight).

Are you thinking of Jackson's fights with Norris or Graham?

If so, Herol Graham is aboslutely not a better fighter than Julian Jackson. He never won a big fight in his life. He certainly was a helluva lot slicker than JJ, but Jackson's power enabled him to accomplish things Graham never did...which includes sending Graham to the hospital with one single blow.

Meant Graham, yes. And I had him well ahead at the time of the KO. That's my least favorite part of the sport: The fact that a fighter who is being outclassed can end the fight with one well-placed shot.

Just don't consider knockouts exciting. If it were up to me, every fight would go to the judges.