Do boxers have a responsibility to entertain?

Hi,

After a debate on another thread I wanted to see what the majority opinion is.

Do you believe fighters have a responsibility to entertain the paying fans or does their role begin and end with self preservation and getting the 'W'.
When a mismatch is made by PPV we blame the TV companies for having the backbone to make the big fights. Sometimes though the big fights are made and disappoint. Would you attach blame to the fighters or simply mark it down as styles not meshing?
Can we castigate John Ruiz for clinching and infighting his way to a title? Do we deserve better from Wlad than jabbing his way past everyone? Was Tyson reckless? Could Erik Morales have been at his prime for longer if he had boxed more and brawled less than he needed too? Would you have liked him as much?

My belief is that boxing, like all sport, is entertainment and there is a responsibility to provide the paying public with the entertainment its seeking.

No responsibility at all, they should get in, get the job done, and get safely out.

Responsibility to whom? If they don't it impacts on their following. The fans will watch the guys who entertain them.

Sport, ultimately, is the entertainment business. If people aren't entertained then they won't bother with that particular sport.

For me, yes, they do.

I don't think they have a responsibility to entertain but should not expect to be admired, have a huge fan base and the money that comes with it if they don't.

Boxers can do what they want but an entertaining style like Gatti and Morales ensure TV coverage and money long after their prime.

Scott, responsibility to the public, we after all are the ones who pay for the right to watch it and who put the cash in the pockets of promoters and fighters alike.

GerardMcL wrote:Scott, responsibility to the public, we after all are the ones who pay for the right to watch it and who put the cash in the pockets of promoters and fighters alike.

Ultimately though it impacts on them. The public can choose to watch whatever they like, and not everyone wants to end up slurring just so they can be in exciting fights.

GerardMcL wrote:Scott, responsibility to the public, we after all are the ones who pay for the right to watch it and who put the cash in the pockets of promoters and fighters alike.

When you look at it in that light I'd suggest that the responsibility then becomes ours. Responsibility not to pay a penny toward them if they don't entertain.

In my mind, the only responsibility they have is to turn up and to box to the best of their abilities, and to make a genuine effort to win, no matter who they're facing or what the circumstances are. If they entertain in doing that, great. If they don't, so be it.

As I always say, boxing is a results-based business. If sticking and moving behind a jab and avoiding dangerous exchanges whenever possible is what you need to do to win, then you do it, simple as that. A boxer is at risk each and every time they step in to the ring - to say that they owe us more than my aforementioned effort to win is a little harsh, I'd say, and probably unrealistic, too.

We choose to pay though, we are not forced to. If you want guaranteed 'entertainment' then watch wrestling, if you want boxing then watch boxing. You mention Ruiz, would you think more highly of him had he stood off people with his hands down, and retired with a 0-20 record?

Back in the old days, if a gentleman were to run and stink the place out, he prehaps wouldnt get paid

They should bring that back in

88Chris05 wrote:In my mind, the only responsibility they have is to turn up and to box to the best of their abilities, and to make a genuine effort to win, no matter who they're facing or what the circumstances are. If they entertain in doing that, great. If they don't, so be it.

As I always say, boxing is a results-based business. If sticking and moving behind a jab and avoiding dangerous exchanges whenever possible is what you need to do to win, then you do it, simple as that. A boxer is at risk each and every time they step in to the ring - to say that they owe us more than my aforementioned effort to win is a little harsh, I'd say, and probably unrealistic, too.

agree with every word could not have summed it up better

No I wouldn't. I think Chris probably hit the nail on the head for me - 'best of their abilities'.
Ruiz made the very best of limited ability. I always felt Hatton made the best of his ability. I think Wlad doesn't make the best of his ability, in that he is too safely safely and could be more entertaining - although it is hard to argue against a guy that holds the title.

Fists, disagree completely but only on the basis of your point

A boxer might take risks in order to get to his opponent, but his only priority is doing just that. As a consequence the fans might get a half decent fight as a result. But the boxer isn't thinking "entertainment for the fans" he's thinking "i'm going to have to take a few here to get my own off".

Boxing is all about hitting whilst not getting hit. For every FMJ there is a Brandon Rios, so the whole equation gets roughly balanced out.

By saying a boxer has a "responsibility" (which is the big word in this arguement) you're basically saying he should be putting himself and his health in harms for that one reason, entertainment.

Some boxers are cautious and defensive, some throw their bombs. It's just their respective styles, it's not a choice of entertainment on their part but rather something they bring to the ring that has become their way of fighting for the years they've been doing so.

Yes, Mike Tyson said that verbatim in some video on the "Great Heavyweights", I seem to remember, Steffan. Not sure that it was true, or that I agree with the sentiments in any case.

In my view, there is no responsibility for any fighter to be entertaining at all. It may not make him popular, but it may make him successful, which is from where reward and renown genuinely flow. Look at Sammy Angott, Pernell Whitaker or half a dozen others, who were awkward, cussed, "couldn't draw flies" but made it right to the top and were paid accordingly.

The responsibility, if such there is, lies with the "entertaining" fighters to devise a method of beating their duller brethren. If they can't, then you'd be pretty foolish to adopt a style that was anything other than dull.

for me the reason that boxing is so interesting is because of certain styles making fights they shouldnt have to go out and get into a tearup if thats not what theyre good at.
you think larry holmes is gonna be thinking about entertaining the fans when hes avoiding earnie shavers right hand? should he risk taking it just to please you? no hes there to win a contest any way he can within the rules.

I don't really think boxers have a responsibility to be entertaining but I think boxing needs entertaining boxers in order to remain popular.

Lets face it, if every boxer had the style of Johnny Nelson than I doubt the sport would have a fanbase at all.

[quote="J.Benson II"]I don't really think boxers have a responsibility to be entertaining but I think boxing needs entertaining boxers in order to remain popular.

Lets face it, if every boxer had the style of Johnny Nelson than I doubt the sport would have a fanbase at all.[/quotes

same in any sport if football only ever had boring 0-0 draws it would lose a lot of fans

sigh

entertaining doesn't necessarily mean tear up.
Protecting your health has to be key for a fighter, I suppose it all comes down to legacy and earnings. Both of these would seem to suffer from a lack of entertainment or an inability to get the spectators interested in your fights

No responsibility at all. No one in sport has any responsibility to entertain.

Entertainment is a byproduct of their individual skill.

Sport was created as a means of entertainment, though. This shouldn't be forgotten, despite the money and politics that now dominate.

Sport exists in all its forms to entertain the people. A fighter who forgets that will never be regarded as highly as one who embraces it.
See Erik Morales v Manny Pacquaio 1 Rd12 and post fight interview for exmaple

Fists

Throughout history there has been a Brandon Rios (for me he's one of the best all action punch taking fighters for entertainment i can think of) for every FMJ (who is a bit more exciting than he used to be but doesn't do wars etc).

Point is history is littered with cautious fighters who weren't doing it for the fans long before the money ever became stupidly substantial to the point todays fighters can fight once a year and be comfortable for life etc.

And we're not talking about sport, talking about boxing. Very different from a generalised sport context as these guys could well die

I appreciate the danger, I'm not saying wade in, hands down and chin up.
I have really enjoyed Floyd's last few fights where he seems to have grasped the need to have more entertaining fights.
If aggression can be used in the scoring of fights, we have all seen fights when someone got the nod because the forced the issue, can't it also be used in rating fighters or determining their position in GOAT lists.

you have a responsibility to entertain in the sense than you should take a fight in the best of health with sufficent training and a winning mindset. thats about it, not taking punches for the sake of it. some fights have left the public feeling sour and rightly so (cook/burns, audley/ haye, and pacquioa/mosley come to mind), injury, unwillingness to fight and claiming a paycheck without trying to win are unfair to the public, and in my opinion the individual boxers did have a responsibility to entertain that they failed on, but as for having responsibiltys to ensure your fighting style is good to watch i dont agree with. i like watching how boxers deal with different styles, thats what make boxing interesting.

Scottrf wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:Scott, responsibility to the public, we after all are the ones who pay for the right to watch it and who put the cash in the pockets of promoters and fighters alike.

Ultimately though it impacts on them. The public can choose to watch whatever they like, and not everyone wants to end up slurring just so they can be in exciting fights.

Naz entertained, but he doesn't slur. He's just the size of a house.

Yes if they ask for big money, no if they just want to make a living.

The win is all important. Why should they go out and take punches they don't need to just to entertain?

Personally I love watching a guy with a good defence. I really enjoy watching the Klitschko's

The responsibility to entertain for me lies on the shoulders of the promoters. Putting on a fight card and expecting people to pay for it means that it should be entertaining. I don't mean that all the fights need to be like Gatti vs Ward I mean that all the fights should be competitive. Not tuning up fights or old men looking for pay cheques. I know younger fighters need to learn their trade but they should do it on undercards where there are other fights on that could go either way. Thinking back to the last big event the Mayweather card I reckon 19 out of 20 fans would all have picked the winners of the 3 main fights, Mayweather, Alvarez and Morales, that's not making competitive fights.

to be fair morales original fight was competetive though i completely see where you are coming from.

True I forgot Morales had a late opponent change but for a PPV event I'd still want more. Mayweather having a tune up or maybe one last pay day before he decides he can't be bothered with boxing anymore, Alvarez was just trying new stuff with Gomez knowing he could take him out as and when he wanted, how on earth Gomez has challenged for two world titles is beyond me, and Morales was beating on a kid from a weight class below. It really is depressing that it was actually one of the better fight cards recently, promoters need to sort it out.

big names sell tickets and as long as the opponents sound credible and hbo sky or primetime telling you how good the fight will be it will attract casuals and most hardcore fans will watch because its the best they can hope to see... its always the fans that get the short end

An intresting topic.

Now for me as mentioned above the boxers just need to do their best for the entertainment to come.

There is also clashes of styles, for me Pernel Whitaker was very entertaining and skilled yet for a lot he was dull as dishwater.

I'm sure there are boxing fans out there that like to see someone with the ability to spoil and admire that aspect to boxing.

My feeling is the fighter has more of a responsibility to still be around for his family than they would to entertain and as long as they are being the best they can both offensively and defensively then the entertainment will be provided and they would hopefully come out of the sport well enough to enjoy their lives.

Ultimately yes to answer the question, they are paid entertainers. Fighters need to have a balance, although the prerogative for a fighter is to win, ultimately a great fight or a crushing ko gets the fans hot and bothered and wanting to pay to watch a show again.

You have to be exceptionally talented to earn big bucks without being exciting, and that takes time.