Is the purist dying out or did he ever exist??????

Been reading some of the stuff on the other thread about Chisora-Haye being good for Boxing (who knows??) but let's be honest that kind of scene whilst being classless does tend to fascinate somewhat.....

Thing is there would probably be a lot more interest in a proposed fight now than then.....

Do we kid ourselves that this kind of stuff is abhorrent and yet secretly enjoy this kind of thing.....Most Boxing fans would rather watch Hagler-Hearns than Pernell Whittaker and that fight was thuggery at it's best/worst...

Do we kid ourselves that we don't like incidents like this when we are drawn to violence by being Boxing fans???

Is the purist dying out or did he really ever exist????????!

I enjoyed the brawl after. There's people who only comment on our sport when something negative happens. At the end of the day they are fighters and not all fighters are gentleman.

There is certainly something to it Truss, one only has to look at Tyson's ongoing ability to fascinate us and the publicity he garnered throughout his career even when it was pretty obvious his skills had regressed to almost nothing, whether we like to admit it or nor there is clearly an element in our sport and perhaps all of us as fans drawn to such people and acts, not me of course I'm a different class.

Think its a given truss - we enjoy the violence - its in our nature. But appreciation hasnt died down - theres just less to appreciate. This coming out red in a grey background has softened what it actually was - a disgrace. But as boxing fans its a spark of life had it occurred between eubank benn wtson collins etc it would be branded a disgrace because the fights were exciting enough. I imagine when the division picks up things like this wont be looked at so kindly

The purist is still out there. Mayweather is greatest boxer on the planet and while he is really boring to watch at times he still gets huge PPV which shows that people still love to watch class rather than brutality in the ring

I did enjoy the nonsense afterwards. And don't feel guilty about it, afterall, the people involved are hardly model citizens and no-one got badly hurt. I thought the tripod incident was the highlight, hilarious, especially as it whacked Adam the slime Booth on the bonce. Cracking stuff.

Steffan wrote:The purist is still out there. Mayweather is greatest boxer on the planet and while he is really boring to watch at times he still gets huge PPV which shows that people still love to watch class rather than brutality in the ring

Is this a fact?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Do we kid ourselves that we don't like incidents like this when we are drawn to violence by being Boxing fans?

I take your points Truss but I wouldn't necessarily agree with this part.

I hate violence when it is stripped down to it's rawest forms. Watching guys fight in a street, or in press conferences for that matter, pretty much turns my stomach without exception. I love boxing, but I watch it with the knowledge that, as far as it can be, the violence is controlled. There are rules and parameters that the combatants are expected to follow. Sure, sometimes things happen in the ring that take this control away, but the boundaries are at least there from the outset.

I can understand, to a degree, the 'scrap' that Haye and Chisora had. They are boxers, they have egos and fighting pride that the vast majority of people can't relate too, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. They just looked like a couple of infantile idiots to me, and I would far rather watch them fight in a ring than roll around on the floor like kids in playground.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:

Steffan wrote:The purist is still out there. Mayweather is greatest boxer on the planet and while he is really boring to watch at times he still gets huge PPV which shows that people still love to watch class rather than brutality in the ring

Is this a fact?

Its an opinion that a lot of people on boxing forums share. Not a fact though as a fact is a reality not a belief

I have always enjoyed a classy boxing display over a brawl.

I enjoy both.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Do we kid ourselves that we don't like incidents like this when we are drawn to violence by being Boxing fans?

I take your points Truss but I wouldn't necessarily agree with this part.

I hate violence when it is stripped down to it's rawest forms. Watching guys fight in a street, or in press conferences for that matter, pretty much turns my stomach without exception. I love boxing, but I watch it with the knowledge that, as far as it can be, the violence is controlled. There are rules and parameters that the combatants are expected to follow. Sure, sometimes things happen in the ring that take this control away, but the boundaries are at least there from the outset.

I can understand, to a degree, the 'scrap' that Haye and Chisora had. They are boxers, they have egos and fighting pride that the vast majority of people can't relate too, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. They
just looked like a couple of infantile idiots to me, and I would far rather watch them fight in a ring than roll around on the floor like kids in playground.

Word for word spot on that for me mate.

tcribb wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Do we kid ourselves that we don't like incidents like this when we are drawn to violence by being Boxing fans?

I take your points Truss but I wouldn't necessarily agree with this part.

I hate violence when it is stripped down to it's rawest forms. Watching guys fight in a street, or in press conferences for that matter, pretty much turns my stomach without exception. I love boxing, but I watch it with the knowledge that, as far as it can be, the violence is controlled. There are rules and parameters that the combatants are expected to follow. Sure, sometimes things happen in the ring that take this control away, but the boundaries are at least there from the outset.

I can understand, to a degree, the 'scrap' that Haye and Chisora had. They are boxers, they have egos and fighting pride that the vast majority of people can't relate too, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. They
just looked like a couple of infantile idiots to me, and I would far rather watch them fight in a ring than roll around on the floor like kids in playground.

Word for word spot on that for me mate.

ok you appreciate what boxing 'should' stand for.

however and i think truss has a very good point- will you be enjoying the chisora/haye fight more (if it goes ahead) than if the scrap didnt happen?

The fighters whom I enjoy watching most of all are Hopkins and Mayweather, they epitomise what boxing is, hit without getting hit. Watching a war can be exhilarating but it doesn't compare to the poetry in motion that is Floyd Mayweather.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The fighters whom I enjoy watching most of all are Hopkins and Mayweather, they epitomise what boxing is, hit without getting hit. Watching a war can be exhilarating but it doesn't compare to the poetry in motion that is Floyd Mayweather.

Thank god we don't have more Hopkins and Mayweathers boxing would be done away with.

Depends on what you call poetry much prefer Henry Armstrong art of boxing to say someone like Mayweathers, the pressure the infighting, all wonderful skills gets overlooked, when someone does a little razzle dazzle

A little razzle dazzle?

Mayweather for me is the textbook fighter, he can fight wonderfully in a number of ways while retaining his ability to avoid punishment.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:A little razzle dazzle?

Mayweather for me is the textbook fighter, he can fight wonderfully in a number of ways while retaining his ability to avoid punishment.

Is there such a thing as a textbook fighter ?

A fighter will fight to his strengths and remain victorious, Mayweather is an exceptional fighter an has a style which serves him well, but as for a textbook fighter there isnt such a thing in my opinion.

I'd say he's textbook because he can do absolutely everything, he is for me stylistic perfection but you also have equally perfect fighters like Duran or Chavez who had the pressure side of things down to a tee. Both had under rated boxing skills and were very adept defensively.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd say he's textbook because he can do absolutely everything, he is for me stylistic perfection but you also have equally perfect fighters like Duran or Chavez who had the pressure side of things down to a tee. Both had under rated boxing skills and were very adept defensively.

He couldn't fight on the inside like Chavez mate, he couldn't fight at a pace and intensity like Armstrong, he couldn't put together combinations like a young Ezzard Charles, there's lots and lots he hasn't shown the ability to do which you can't expect and the others couldn't do what he does. That's why I never believe in the mumbo jumbo of a textbook fighter, but your opinion pal if that's what you find it all about.

He's a very good infighter and can fight at a high intensity, there's a difference between being able to do something and being the absolute best at it.

Mayweather is such a good fighter, because he can adapt to anything that is put in front of him.

In some cases he writes the textbooks.