Why do people overrate 'defensive' boxers today?

There was probably always some degree of overrating fighters like that. But in general boxing was always a sport where the aggressor was rewarded, sometimes too much even, sometimes just for being the aggressor. Overrating of defensive fighters today is probably the biggest pet peeve I have with the sport. It is a multi-step problem that encompasses 3 of the worst types of fans - 1) it isn't just the tribal fans - but that is part of it. 2) It also has to do with fans who are arrogant/have overall inferiority complexes, and want to act like they are seeing something with the defensive fighter that only a trained eye can see - that they are truly seeing 'the sweet science.' 3) And then also, some people seem to have sort of a fear/physical inferiority of the aggressive/big punching fighters. The way they combat this, is to overrate or overhype the defensive guys, either in mythical matchups or in their actual fight performances. Rewarding the 'defensive' fighter with almost every round that is close/has little action, is just terrible for the sport. I don't think it comes down to race or even nationality with all of it either as the 3 biggest examples in my head are 1) Mayweather - a lot of his fights; 2) Ward - a lot of his fights, and then 3) Fury - his 1st fight with Wilder, and even some of his fight with Wlad (I snoozed through a lot of it and never really scored it.) Also 4) most MMA guys, from all backgrounds, were picking Stipe to beat Ngannou - saying Stipe was just levels above him, when I feel like anyone who watched that first fight, could tell that some of those shots Stipe took, I wouldn't bet on him being able to take all of those again. We need to get back to scoring each round for the guy who does the best work in that round, and leaving it at that. No extra points for dancing around, or because the defensive fighter didn't get beat up.

Comments (20)

Boxing1013

I think that to some extent in recent years Floyd has made casuals more likely to think that a guy who shows slick/flashy defense -- even when fighting nobodies -- can go all the way and be a dominant force. It's just not true though, and it's the same with guys who knock out all their low-level opponents -- it shows they have power but has very little bearing on their ceiling in the sport. Off the top of my head some defensive guys recently who were overrated are Josh Kelly and Tevin Farmer. Floyd was great because he hit more than he got hit. He still had to have an output to be a great fighter. He was a great counterpuncher. Most 'defensive' guys get outthrown or landed by their opponents these days.

5y ago

SableampWhitefish

Boxers with a good defense have always been highly rated and respected in this sport. Jack Johnson, Willie Pep, Niccolino Locche, Pernell Whitaker...I could go on. There's nothing new about that. Only to newbs maybe. I think that to some extent in recent years Floyd has made casuals more likely to think that a guy who shows slick/flashy defense -- even when fighting nobodies -- can go all the way and be a dominant force. It's just not true though, and it's the same with guys who knock out all their low-level opponents -- it shows they have power but has very little bearing on their ceiling in the sport. Off the top of my head some defensive guys recently who were overrated are Josh Kelly and Tevin Farmer.

5y ago

Boxing1013

5y ago

Boxing1013

Yes, it can get tricky but look at it this way. If there were two defensive fighters neither doing much except making sure that they did not get hit what sort of fight would that be? Is that the sort of fight that people would pay to see? Which is why I lean towards rewarding aggression even if it does not result in much but is genuine. Boxers are in the ring to fight each other and try to get a decisive win but sometimes that is not possible, particularly when one is a spoiler. In that situation should the other boxer who is trying to make a fight of it not be rewarded for his (crowd pleasing) efforts? I agree overall - the aggressor has to be 'rewarded' if anything, as he is the one making the fight. However, I think that generally takes care of itself - usually if you are the aggressor in a fight and walking someone down, then you are winning and landing more/better shots.

5y ago

miniq

You have not watched Tyson Fury's entire career from the start 'I witnessed it as it happened'. Be honest with yourself? You have only jumped on Fury's bang wagon I would say 'The past 2-3 years or so'. You are not fooling me, if he gets beat 'You will pipe down regarding his abilities'. Anybody that has watched Tyson Fury's career, and who is honest with themselves 'The descriptive word clumsy is never far from their mouth'. Tyson Fury is a clumsy fighter, and the fact of the matter is? He has been there to be hit in all of his fights since Wilder I. Deontay Wilder I was the last time Tyson Fury implemented his old riddler style 'Which was a bi-product of Peter Fury's training'. Tyson Fury is clumsy on the inside, he has a tendency to square up 'But even still he has a better defense than Anthony Joshua'. I have watched all of Fury's career from the start so get out of here with that BS. Fury doesn't create space on the inside (unless his opponent is stuck on the ropes in a guard), he clinches, so that naturally squares you up, as I said, he likes to hold & maul. Why would he give space to someone like AJ who can throw tight powerful punches when he can close right up and put his weight on him? Difference is Fury controls the clinch better than anyone, he positions his head and body better and he controls the opponents and re-positions out of the break to leave his opponents vulnerable. True toe to toe inside fights are rare, they require reciprocation from the opponent, if you're not throwing & landing then your opponent is throwing and landing. Fury realized quickly in his early days entering these kind of brawls even with size and toughness was a fools game.

5y ago

PRINCEKOOL

Most people don't know anything about defense. Same people who would have claimed in 2012 that Broner was the next Mayweather. The same people who say Fury is "stupid" for putting his hands behind his back despite being 10ft away from his opponent, or using it to draw shots from incompetent opponents. Defence is about positioning which always starts with the feet. The only exception is when you take the ropes and decides to roll, slip, duck and slide...but against someone decent they will pin, roughhouse and find openings if you want to hold your feet here. This is when someone like Floyd or Fury for example will engage the clinch & reset. If anyone thinks Tyson Fury is clumsy on the inside they've never watched him fight, he's one of the most competent inside fighters today. People just confuse his mauling, roughhousing & clinching as messy when it's merely just a great fight tactic especially against a hurt tired opponent. Add the fact he is always taller than his opponent and isn't a great tight offensive fighter he excels in an area he shouldn't. You have not watched Tyson Fury's entire career from the start 'I witnessed it as it happened'. Be honest with yourself? You have only jumped on Fury's bang wagon I would say 'The past 2-3 years or so'. You are not fooling me, if he gets beat 'You will pipe down regarding his abilities'. Anybody that has watched Tyson Fury's career, and who is honest with themselves 'The descriptive word clumsy is never far from their mouth'. Tyson Fury is a clumsy fighter, and the fact of the matter is? He has been there to be hit in all of his fights since Wilder I. Deontay Wilder I was the last time Tyson Fury implemented his old riddler style 'Which was a bi-product of Peter Fury's training'. Tyson Fury is clumsy on the inside, he has a tendency to square up 'But even still he has a better defense than Anthony Joshua'.

5y ago

miniq

Some people don't know what a good defense is, they think 'Standing 10 meters away from a opponent is a good defense'. Mike Tyson at his peak had a great defense, fighters who can fight on the inside 'Deflect, block, evade and ride punches' have a great defense. Very few fighters in my opinion show this kind of defense to a very high level. Evander Holyfield is another fighter who had a tested defense. Most people don't know anything about defense. Same people who would have claimed in 2012 that Broner was the next Mayweather. The same people who say Fury is "stupid" for putting his hands behind his back despite being 10ft away from his opponent, or using it to draw shots from incompetent opponents. Defence is about positioning which always starts with the feet. The only exception is when you take the ropes and decides to roll, slip, duck and slide...but against someone decent they will pin, roughhouse and find openings if you want to hold your feet here. This is when someone like Floyd or Fury for example will engage the clinch & reset. If anyone thinks Tyson Fury is clumsy on the inside they've never watched him fight, he's one of the most competent inside fighters today. People just confuse his mauling, roughhousing & clinching as messy when it's merely just a great fight tactic especially against a hurt tired opponent. Add the fact he is always taller than his opponent and isn't a great tight offensive fighter he excels in an area he shouldn't.

5y ago

PRINCEKOOL

Tyson used his defence to hit you hard. Floyd used his defence to survive to hear final bell. Tyson should win round, Floyd should lose rounds, because Floyd approached round like he's taken a great shot and used defence to survive rounf Mayweather had a great defense, he could AVOID you or he could engage and still use his defense 'There are not many fighters active today with a multi-dimensional defense like that'. Some fighters give it a go, such as Tyson Fury 'But really I think Fury is extremely clumsy on the inside'.

5y ago

hugh_grant

5y ago

PRINCEKOOL

5y ago

hugh_grant

Being defensive as you got a glass chin is ok and you've just taking a great shot and trying to survive to hear bell to end the round. But I think you should lose rounds overly defensive.

5y ago

QueensburyRules

- -Started with TBE TUE 51-0 late notice TBA fights in the latter half of his career in his hometown with his selection of officials. Make Sven Ottke look like a wannabee...

5y ago

Richard_G

And that is kind of my point - if we were watching two guys fight on the street, and neither one landed - how would we call that fight? We would say 'Draw, neither guy did sh.it' It should be the same for any other type of fight we see, in the boxing ring as well obviously. When you start to ACTIVELY score anything else other than the punches that land, then you get into a real dangerous spot, where now you can try and rationalize a guy winning any round, and rounds they have no business winning. And that gives way to terrible scorecards from judges being accepted as well. I could say 'well this guy was effective with his aggression, he didn't let the other guy land or even hardly throw a punch in that round, he won.' You could say 'no this guy won, he avoided more punches and showed better defense' Meanwhile neither guy landed a punch. Yes, it can get tricky but look at it this way. If there were two defensive fighters neither doing much except making sure that they did not get hit what sort of fight would that be? Is that the sort of fight that people would pay to see? Which is why I lean towards rewarding aggression even if it does not result in much but is genuine. Boxers are in the ring to fight each other and try to get a decisive win but sometimes that is not possible, particularly when one is a spoiler. In that situation should the other boxer who is trying to make a fight of it not be rewarded for his (crowd pleasing) efforts?

5y ago

Boxing1013

It depends how the defense is. I love watching boxers slip and sliding, whereas I hate watching boxers who hold all the time. The Andrade fight this weekend was a good example, everyone says that he's a defensive wizard, but I just saw a guy holding all the time. Yeah he is more awkward, than slick anyway

5y ago

Boxing1013

people overrate defense in order to justify giving a fight to their favorite fighter when he gets outlanded. if your defense does not ultimately result in landing a clean effective punch, the it doesnt deserve to be rewarded. matter of fact, all else equal, rounds should be scored to the aggressor for ring generalship - by opting to defend, backpedal and counterpunch, the defensive fighter is by definition surrendering the initiative, i.e. ring generalship, to the fighter moving forward. yes, exactly. well said

5y ago

denium

5y ago

Toyman

5y ago

ShoulderRoll

Having a great defence is a massive skill if you can counter effectively and mix up with taking the centre of the ring when needed. Mayweather did, Fury does. What I hate is ineffective aggression. I see fighters winning like that, especially in some of the dodgy scorecards we have in England, and that is not a scoring criterion. The strange thing is a lot of experts, and tons of casual fans seem to think coming forward, or as I say, plodding forward, is being effective. Being effective on the front foot is going forward, getting into range and landing good shots, not going forward, landing nothing, and eating a couple of jabs. Exactly. It has to be EFFECTIVE aggression. Simply plodding forward by itself isn't enough.

5y ago

IronDanHamza

Did you read the initial post? Some seem to not to have read it, or to not be able to comprehend what they read. Defense is obviously important. The question was why some overrate defensive fighters in their fights, giving them rounds where the action is virtually even. It seems to be yourself who can’t comprehend the responses to your thread. You’ve had multiple good responses and each one of them you’ve replied by asking if they’ve read the OP. Which part of the responses are eluding you? Let me help you. I have clearly just explained to you why defensive fighters get rounds scored for them often. Which part aren’t you understanding?

5y ago

Boxing1013

What happened to points for aggression? And that is kind of my point - if we were watching two guys fight on the street, and neither one landed - how would we call that fight? We would say 'Draw, neither guy did sh.it' It should be the same for any other type of fight we see, in the boxing ring as well obviously. When you start to ACTIVELY score anything else other than the punches that land, then you get into a real dangerous spot, where now you can try and rationalize a guy winning any round, and rounds they have no business winning. And that gives way to terrible scorecards from judges being accepted as well. I could say 'well this guy was effective with his aggression, he didn't let the other guy land or even hardly throw a punch in that round, he won.' You could say 'no this guy won, he avoided more punches and showed better defense' Meanwhile neither guy landed a punch.

5y ago