By Alex Aviles: Last Saturday night Cuban Olympic gold medalist Guillermo Rigondeaux defeated Filipino star Nonito Donaire in convincing fashion. Post-fight there was talk among the boxing community about how the fight played out on an entertainment scale. Some fans considered it a good (albeit not great) fight. While some just considered it flat out boring.
The thoughts on both sides had their opinions based on a few points. Fans that considered it great base it on the appreciation of Rigo’s skill level and ability to take a fighter who is top 5 on a lot of fans P4P list and made it look easy. While on the flip-side the fans just didn’t see a toe-to-toe war (i.e Rios/Alvarado, Corrales/Castillo, Gatti/Ward etc.) thus immediately denouncing it as “boring”.
At the end of the day the term “styles make fights” rings very true. Most recently the bout between Timothy Bradley, who was widely considered (before 3/16) as one of the most boring fighters on the planet stepped into the ring with Ruslan Provodnikov and on that night proved otherwise. Does this necessarily mean the rumored Bradley/Marquez fight will be a slugfest? Not necessarily, but it is very possible.
Sergio Martinez vs. Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. before they clashed was being considered as a Fight of the Year candidate from the press. The fans and media alike were lukewarm about the lack of war during the fight before the forthcoming drama in the 12th round. Cotto vs. Mayweather is yet another example. A lot considered it a good fight (for a Floyd Mayweather fight) and boring (for a Miguel Cotto fight).
So what is it that makes fights disappointing or entertaining? Is it the pre-fight hype? The lack of hype? The crowd reaction? The commentators? Or is it just the fight itself? Would we have considered Bradley/Pacquiao a good fight had it been the same exact fight but between two unknowns on Friday Night Fights?
I’d like to know from you the fans/readers here. What do you consider a good fight and a bad fight? Share in the comments.
Comments are closed.