A DUTY TO ENTERTAIN?

Larry Merchant, Michel Rosenthal and the fans of Arturo Gatti are going to vehemently disagree with what I am about to write.

Professional boxers have no duty to entertain. NONE. Their primary duty once in the ring is to relentlessly pursue victory by whatever tactics best suit them.

Let's start with some analogies to other sports. Does Mariano Rivera have a duty to allow baserunners in order to get a home crowd excited? Does Peyton Manning have a duty to throw high to enable crushing hits or to throw interceptions to keep a game close? Does Michael Phelps have a duty to give other swimmers a head start so as to make a finish more exciting? Would anyone care to make such an argument?

Let's bring it closer to home. Should Sweet Pea have stood and traded with Chavez? Would have been monumentally exciting? Heck, should rings be shrunk to 16 feet to take dancing and movement out of the sport? I can't see many supporting that either.

Here's the REAL reason fighters should not worry about entertaining. It makes one fight stupidly. It puts the burden on making THE FIGHT interesting on the guy who is winning rather than where it belongs, on the fighter who is behind. Is there any other sport, hell, any other human activity (outside the Democratic party of course ) where we ask the excellent to throttle back so the lesser folk don't have to try? Of course not. Why? Because it leads to mediocrity.

There is also a lesser reason. "Entertaining" is entirely a matter of taste. I am about to spout a heresy. Mike Tyson did not entertain me very often. Watching his fights took about he same level of mental brainpower as watching a pickup truck crush an armadillo. Now Salvador Sanchez or Sergio Martinez or Ricardo Lopez or Dwight Muhammad Qawi or even BHOP? Thinking fighters? Those guys I find fascinating. Am I right? There is no right in entertainment.

But there is in sport. The right is the relentless pursuit of victory.

There are fighters who are seemingly always in slugfests and therefore are deemed entertaining. Men like Gatti, Matthew Saad Muhammad and Bobby Chacon among them. Why? Because they could all be hit and hurt. Now warrior virtues like these men showed are essential to boxing. But since when did the skill not to get hit get removed from the warrior virtue list? Those three mem didn't fight the way they did to entertain. They fought that way because it best suited their talents and their limitations.

Lastly I'd argue it is the promoters job to create entertainng matchups. It is the fighter's job to win.

So what you are saying is that you love Winky Wright because he does what he has to in order to win? LOL JK

Soonermark890 wrote:So what you are saying is that you love Winky Wright because he does what he has to in order to win? LOL JK

Geeze I walked into that one.

Boxing fans are not uniform in what entertains them. I found some entertainment value in Tyson, though not as much as alot of guys did. He blew out overmatched foes, but there wasn't any drama in his early fights.

The duty to entertain is not there, but entertaining will make you more money over time. Juan Manuel Marquez has become more beloved and entertaining (to most boxing fans) as he has aged (slowed down and thus hit more) and also made a conscious decision to be willing to trade more.

Fighters should be exciting as they can be without taking unwarranted risks. Take the offensive against fighters you are outclassing.

i agree with this post..fighters sports figures etc etc have been conditioned by announcers to say that they are there to entertain..as you say its to win.im a huge life long ny yankee fan.its not entertaining to me when they lose a playoff game lol..entertainment is a by product or a result of that fighter trying to win..its not there goal or purpose.win or lose robinson always entertained me because of his brillence..ray mancini also had the same effect on me cause of the energy and excitement he delivered in the ring..pep also see the robinson reason..fighters like bo-hop winky a harold joihnson never entertained me as a fan..manny pac does even against the non etertaining clottey..
its what captures your immagination that entertains..its not there goal..example i marvel at olympic style figure skating.its beauty grace i find entertaing but again thats a by product..example would i love to see a davinci a rapheal or michelangelo paint live..yep indeed..would i be entertained.not in a million years.i feel outside of a rare unbelievable painting theres no by product result for me in that..

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:So what you are saying is that you love Winky Wright because he does what he has to in order to win? LOL JK

Geeze I walked into that one.

LOL sorry I couldnt resist.

I agree, Marble. I liken promoters to movie producers. It's the actors job to do his best. The job of the producer is to see that actors are chosen who can create entertainment together. Matching fighters that produce good fights is the job of the promoter, not the fighter. If you'd like an entertaining card, the last thing you do is put two counterpunchers together (Except if their names are Leonard and Benitez.).

captainanddew wrote:Boxing fans are not uniform in what entertains them. I found some entertainment value in Tyson, though not as much as alot of guys did. He blew out overmatched foes, but there wasn't any drama in his early fights.

The duty to entertain is not there, but entertaining will make you more money over time. Juan Manuel Marquez has become more beloved and entertaining (to most boxing fans) as he has aged (slowed down and thus hit more) and also made a conscious decision to be willing to trade more.

Fighters should be exciting as they can be without taking unwarranted risks. Take the offensive against fighters you are outclassing.

Being entertaining absolutely has some financial impact. I agree. I guess the question becomes what is an "unwarranted" risk. Probably an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. I like seeing fighters go in for the kill too, one reason is it is just about always riskier in that moment than backing off and starting over. There's a world class contradiction.

dmar5143 wrote:i agree with this post..fighters sports figures etc etc have been conditioned by announcers to say that they are there to entertain..as you say its to win.im a huge life long ny yankee fan.its not entertaining to me when they lose a playoff game lol..entertainment is a by product or a result of that fighter trying to win..its not there goal or purpose.win or lose robinson always entertained me because of his brillence..ray mancini also had the same effect on me cause of the energy and excitement he delivered in the ring..pep also see the robinson reason..fighters like bo-hop winky a harold joihnson never entertained me as a fan..manny pac does even against the non etertaining clottey..
its what captures your immagination that entertains..its not there goal..example i marvel at olympic style figure skating.its beauty grace i find entertaing but again thats a by product..example would i love to see a davinci a rapheal or michelangelo paint live..yep indeed..would i be entertained.not in a million years.i feel outside of a rare unbelievable painting theres no by product result for me in that..

LOL, by the accounts I've read Michaelangelo would have yelled at you had you gotten to close!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:Boxing fans are not uniform in what entertains them. I found some entertainment value in Tyson, though not as much as alot of guys did. He blew out overmatched foes, but there wasn't any drama in his early fights.

The duty to entertain is not there, but entertaining will make you more money over time. Juan Manuel Marquez has become more beloved and entertaining (to most boxing fans) as he has aged (slowed down and thus hit more) and also made a conscious decision to be willing to trade more.

Fighters should be exciting as they can be without taking unwarranted risks. Take the offensive against fighters you are outclassing.

Being entertaining absolutely has some financial impact. I agree. I guess the question becomes what is an "unwarranted" risk. Probably an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. I like seeing fighters go in for the kill too, one reason is it is just about always riskier in that moment than backing off and starting over. There's a world class contradiction.

There is always a risk when a fighter goes for the kill. If you go too hard you can gas out or get caught in return. What gets boxing fans down today is there is guys that don't go for the kill when 98% of the boxing fans watching the fight are saying it is time to step on the gas pedal.

captainanddew wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:Boxing fans are not uniform in what entertains them. I found some entertainment value in Tyson, though not as much as alot of guys did. He blew out overmatched foes, but there wasn't any drama in his early fights.

The duty to entertain is not there, but entertaining will make you more money over time. Juan Manuel Marquez has become more beloved and entertaining (to most boxing fans) as he has aged (slowed down and thus hit more) and also made a conscious decision to be willing to trade more.

Fighters should be exciting as they can be without taking unwarranted risks. Take the offensive against fighters you are outclassing.

Being entertaining absolutely has some financial impact. I agree. I guess the question becomes what is an "unwarranted" risk. Probably an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. I like seeing fighters go in for the kill too, one reason is it is just about always riskier in that moment than backing off and starting over. There's a world class contradiction.

There is always a risk when a fighter goes for the kill. If you go too hard you can gas out or get caught in return. What gets boxing fans down today is there is guys that don't go for the kill when 98% of the boxing fans watching the fight are saying it is time to step on the gas pedal.

Yeah I get that. I do. But what about calling on the guy losing to make one last supreme kill or be killed effort?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:Boxing fans are not uniform in what entertains them. I found some entertainment value in Tyson, though not as much as alot of guys did. He blew out overmatched foes, but there wasn't any drama in his early fights.

The duty to entertain is not there, but entertaining will make you more money over time. Juan Manuel Marquez has become more beloved and entertaining (to most boxing fans) as he has aged (slowed down and thus hit more) and also made a conscious decision to be willing to trade more.

Fighters should be exciting as they can be without taking unwarranted risks. Take the offensive against fighters you are outclassing.

Being entertaining absolutely has some financial impact. I agree. I guess the question becomes what is an "unwarranted" risk. Probably an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. I like seeing fighters go in for the kill too, one reason is it is just about always riskier in that moment than backing off and starting over. There's a world class contradiction.

There is always a risk when a fighter goes for the kill. If you go too hard you can gas out or get caught in return. What gets boxing fans down today is there is guys that don't go for the kill when 98% of the boxing fans watching the fight are saying it is time to step on the gas pedal.

Yeah I get that. I do. But what about calling on the guy losing to make one last supreme kill or be killed effort?

Agreed, guys behind in fights don't make the last stand and go after the opponent enough. I think the blame for that rests not only with the fighter, but also with the corner. There have been numerous fights over the last few years (that I have scored fights with you guys), where a bunch of us are posting that the losing fighter needs to let it hang out, but the corner doesn't ever tell the fighter so (and the fighter doesn't take it upon himself as well).

There are also way too many fights where the corner waits until the last 2 rounds to urge their fighter to take some risks as they need a KO. That is too late!!!! In a fight where you are behind 5 rounds to 3 at best (or 6-2 most likely) after 8 rounds, it is time to start urging your fighter on. Get him in the mindset of being more aggressive.

captainanddew wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:Boxing fans are not uniform in what entertains them. I found some entertainment value in Tyson, though not as much as alot of guys did. He blew out overmatched foes, but there wasn't any drama in his early fights.

The duty to entertain is not there, but entertaining will make you more money over time. Juan Manuel Marquez has become more beloved and entertaining (to most boxing fans) as he has aged (slowed down and thus hit more) and also made a conscious decision to be willing to trade more.

Fighters should be exciting as they can be without taking unwarranted risks. Take the offensive against fighters you are outclassing.

Being entertaining absolutely has some financial impact. I agree. I guess the question becomes what is an "unwarranted" risk. Probably an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. I like seeing fighters go in for the kill too, one reason is it is just about always riskier in that moment than backing off and starting over. There's a world class contradiction.

There is always a risk when a fighter goes for the kill. If you go too hard you can gas out or get caught in return. What gets boxing fans down today is there is guys that don't go for the kill when 98% of the boxing fans watching the fight are saying it is time to step on the gas pedal.

Yeah I get that. I do. But what about calling on the guy losing to make one last supreme kill or be killed effort?

Agreed, guys behind in fights don't make the last stand and go after the opponent enough. I think the blame for that rests not only with the fighter, but also with the corner. There have been numerous fights over the last few years (that I have scored fights with you guys), where a bunch of us are posting that the losing fighter needs to let it hang out, but the corner doesn't ever tell the fighter so (and the fighter doesn't take it upon himself as well).

There are also way too many fights where the corner waits until the last 2 rounds to urge their fighter to take some risks as they need a KO. That is too late!!!! In a fight where you are behind 5 rounds to 3 at best (or 6-2 most likely) after 8 rounds, it is time to start urging your fighter on. Get him in the mindset of being more aggressive.

I think that's a real insight I hadn't considered. Hurting or stopping a guy generally is not a one punch affair. It takes work, a set-up, time to execute on the set-up and the right mindset. Good call.

A couple of weeks back someone asked why the Mongoose got so many KO's. I think the most important thing was that it was always his goal. He believed KOing guys meant you took less punishment which meant you got more fights which meant you made more money.

Boxers seem to be a different sort.

I played sports through college. In football, basketball, or soccer, you have a damn scoreboard (not that I'm advocating for open scoring in boxing-horrible idea), so you know where you stand.

When you are down 14 in the 3rd quarter in football there is a sense of urgency but not panic.

In boxing, after about 8 out of 12 rounds (7 of 10, or 5 of 8), the outcome isn't often decided, but it is often is leaning big time for one fighter. It isn't often that you can be down 5-3 or 6-2 and comeback and get a win by decision. Unless the opponent wilts you are going to have to score a knockdown or a KO.

Fighters have no true scoreboard during the fight. AND MOST FIGHTERS ARE DELUSIONAL!!!!! They think they are doing better than they are doing!! A corner needs to give the fighter a little urgency earlier without instilling panic.

captainanddew wrote:Boxers seem to be a different sort.

I played sports through college. In football, basketball, or soccer, you have a damn scoreboard (not that I'm advocating for open scoring in boxing-horrible idea), so you know where you stand.

When you are down 14 in the 3rd quarter in football there is a sense of urgency but not panic.

In boxing, after about 8 out of 12 rounds (7 of 10, or 5 of 8), the outcome isn't often decided, but it is often is leaning big time for one fighter. It isn't often that you can be down 5-3 or 6-2 and comeback and get a win by decision. Unless the opponent wilts you are going to have to score a knockdown or a KO.

Fighters have no true scoreboard during the fight. AND MOST FIGHTERS ARE DELUSIONAL!!!!! They think they are doing better than they are doing!! A corner needs to give the fighter a little urgency earlier without instilling panic.

Teddy Atlas always makes that point about boxing being the only sport where you don't know where you stand. He's more or less right and I wouldn't change it for the world!

The fighter delusion thing really is kind of unique isn't it? I guess it's possible because no third party is saying otherwise and your corner has to tread a difficult line between keeping one confident and conveying a sense of reality.

There aren't enough fighters today that have in their head that they are going to get a KO and understand the various paths to get there.

One punch KOs (or the result of a few big punches) are fine when you are a prospect fighting cans, journeyman, and fellow prospects.

One punch KOs don't happen very often when you get to the point that you are fighting top 10 competition in most weight classes. You have to wear an opponent out over time. In my opinion too many fighters come up as one punch KO guys, and don't understand how to effectively wear a good fighter down with pressure and body punching!!!!

The body the body the body the body.

Maybe delusional is too strong a term. But after 8 rounds of a fight where:
Fighter A won clearly rounds 1 and 5
Fighter B won clearly rounds 2, 4, and 7

Rounds 3, 6, and 8 are relatively close


It is hard to fault fighter A for thinking he won the close rounds.Not that the fighter is actively keeping score, but it is hard to fault fighter A for giving himself the benefit of the doubt in those rounds (if he doesn't give himself the benefit of the doubt who will!!!!).

When the judges see Fighter B winning 2 or 3 of the relatively close rounds, all of a sudden you have a 5-3 or 6-2 lead, and a fighter A is well behind.

captainanddew wrote:There aren't enough fighters today that have in their head that they are going to get a KO and understand the various paths to get there.

One punch KOs (or the result of a few big punches) are fine when you are a prospect fighting cans, journeyman, and fellow prospects.

One punch KOs don't happen very often when you get to the point that you are fighting top 10 competition in most weight classes. You have to wear an opponent out over time. In my opinion too many fighters come up as one punch KO guys, and don't understand how to effectively wear a good fighter down with pressure and body punching!!!!
The body the body the body the body.

This is why I scream when some prospect is 8-0 with 7 KO's, has fought a total of 17 professional rounds and his next fight is a guy who hasn't fought in a year and is coming off two straight KO losses. I mean what can one possibly learn?

The fact that boxers feel pressure to entertain is a reflection of the state of the game. When boxing was a top 3 sport you didn't see the same kind of focus on things unrelated to actual in-ring skills.

That said, the reality in today's boxing world is that you have to stand out and make noise to get noticed, which often has little to do with relative boxing talent. Witness the popularity of David Haye in the UK.

Tobe wrote:The fact that boxers feel pressure to entertain is a reflection of the state of the game. When boxing was a top 3 sport you didn't see the same kind of focus on things unrelated to actual in-ring skills.
That said, the reality in today's boxing world is that you have to stand out and make noise to get noticed, which often has little to do with relative boxing talent. Witness the popularity of David Haye in the UK.

How DARE you bring reality into play!