By Gerardo Granados: There have been great boxers in the history of professional boxing who gave fans great boxing nights but, the bravest, meanest and baddest sons of boxing gave us the best fights of all.
Not only the casual boxing fans enjoy it, the boxing purist must appreciate a skilled fighter who gets in to the ring to destroy his opponent and not just to out point him. It is obvious that I am not referring to a simple brawler or a defensive counter boxer. The one who give the crowd what they’ve paid for, a violent bloody grudge fight crowned by a brutal knock out.
Now a days seem to be more valuable for fight judges to score the fights in favor of slick boxers who are elusive, who counter punch rather to pressure his opponent, the ones who will out punch with clean but not powerful punches. Do the readers believe that a boxer should win a fight on points even if he took a beating? The rules were made to decide who wins a fight, effective aggression is only one part of judging a fight though the fighter who put on the pressure might end up risking more than the one who counter punch and relies on his defense the major part of the round.
Should boxing organizations take in consideration the opinion of boxing fans who pay a ticket or PPV event to watch the fights in order to modify the judging criteria? Some boxers spent most part of the round dancing and hugging rather than to risk them self to engage in a vicious trade.
There is no major thrill than to watch a brutal knockout punch, it is true that it is also exciting to watch a skilled defensive fighter to elude a four punch combination leaving his rival patting the air. But is winning the fight on points the main goal?
I met a guy in a dinner who was reading the diary sports section headlined “Bradley defeats Provodnikov”, I asked him if he saw the fight, he responded that the Russian fighter should have won the fight, “he was robbed” he said. In his opinion pro boxing goal is to see one fighter beat the other not just out point him, just as Ruslan did to Tim; I responded to him that the fight was close but Bradley did win the fight on the score cards. He said “maybe… but in the street the one who ends up beaten… the one more injured is the one who loses.”
He was a young man so I asked him if he had ever watched Roberto Duran vs Sugar Ray Leonard I “The brawl in Montreal”, he said he saw it on the internet “it was a great fight they both wanted to kill each other”. I asked him if he saw Pernell Whitaker vs. Julio Cesar Chavez, he said yes, then I told him that the draw was a good call and his answer surprised me a little, he said that Chavez should have won the fight because he was the one risking by pressuring Whitaker who never risked himself on any round, he also thought that Juan Manuel Marquez lost his previous three fights against Manny Pacquiao, he thought that the fights were close but Pacman was the clear winner.
Later on that day a saw my friend and I asked him his opinión on the subject, he said he did not know how to score a fight, that he only watch the main events and that he preffered to see two brave fighters beat the stuffings out of each other, just as Mike Tyson did while prime.
At the end of the day it is only the personal boxing taste what determine which boxing style should be more valuable. What do the readers prefer to watch, the defensive wizards like Pep, Whitaker and Mayweather or the brave mean son of boxing like Pacquiao, Duran, Chavez or Tyson?
Comments are closed.