Boxing Vs Brawling: The Science and Aggression

Boxing has always had different fans. Fans who choose and dismantle every aspect of a fighter. This sport is unlike any other sport in the aspect every opponent is stylistically different or physically different from the last. From fighting the aggressive brawler (Rios,Donaire, Pascal Haye), to the counter puncher/technician (Mayweather, Rigondeaux, Klitschkos, Ward), to the all around boxer puncher (Broner, Garcia, Froch). Different approaches of standup skills is what makes the sport, as well as heart, and will. Like seen in corrent fights Rios/Alvarado, Bradley/Ruslan and Rigondeaux/Donaire; all three though presented sometimes similar the approach and execution is what won them their fights. People continually say "Styles makes Fights" well "Styles makes Fighters". Example: Mike Tyson (Known for his ruthless aggression), Floy Mayweather (Defensive specialist), Julio Cesar Chavez (Aggressive), Bernard Hopkins (Defensive specialist), Ray Robinson (aggressive boxer puncher), Manny Pacquiao (aggressive), Pernell Whitaker (Defensive Specialist) And all considered HOF fighters with their perticular style. Somehow though a smart 34 year old, just turned pro after theost glorified amateur career... Fights his fight, causes frustration from his opponent, causes his opponent to throw less than 200 punchs, gets him to connect at a low 20+% and it was a boring boxing match. Aggression has never won fights unless the aggression was hurting the opponent in the fight but was not seen. Yet because of another's approach (Though used very well and was controlling the fight), was losing. In a sport full of Criticism, the hypocrisy will never change but will the general knowledge of the sport grow? Yet to be seen, in the last 100 year's of the amazing sport! In other words, it's easier for the counterpuncher than the aggressive fighter. Great counterpunchers are a dime a dozen, while the great aggressive fighters are rare and special, they're the ones who attract the crowd. I always find it funny that when great brawlers or boxer punchers counterpunch, the naysayers say "he only likes fighters coming forward". Isn't that what counterpunchers like as well?:thinking: However, when a counterpuncher tries to be aggressive and gets knocked down, the apologists say, "lucky punch or why is he fighting stupid or that's not what he does". And all you have to do is look at JMM(Marquez), excellent counterpuncher, but when he tries being aggressive he got Knocked down against Katsidis and Floyd. He has problems against other counterpunchers, Chris John and Floyd. Counterpunchers always need great aggressive brawlers or boxer puncher to make them look good. The other two can make explosive fights, knock you out going backwards or forward, they can create their own offense and take risks. The counterpuncher needs a dance partner to make their fight exciting.

I'm sorry but I don't see Donaire as a counter puncher... His style is to aggressive which was shown last night.. He went from being the counter punch (as some fans say) with no counter punching skill. If he was as skilled at counter punching as people claim, where was it. No where! Donaire has always been an aggressive/come forward fighter, while Rigondeaux actually is a counter puncher. I've been talking about this fight since the possibility of this fight occurring and happend the way I saw it. Donaire coming forward while getting completely outclassed. If you donaire as a boxer/counter puncher to each is own.

oh god , everyone's an expert after a fight ... atleast dont call doanire a brawler coz that erases the credidbilty of your post ... have a lil clue....please!

haye donaire = brawler? sweet mary