Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do people overrate 'defensive' boxers today?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by _Rexy_ View Post
    Would you like to give an example?
    I still watch Arturo Gatti, a Canadian, fight irish Micky ward. Rock em sock em robots...
    _Rexy_ likes this.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Boxing-1013 View Post
      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.
      My favourite nagging point, Jeff Horn in his fight with Packy was rewarded for his aggression, even perhaps for just being the aggressor, yet look at the reaction to him being awarded the win. To me this shows that most fans don't give a **** as long as their boy wins, oh some will try to contrive other reasons why Horn didn't win but underneath that veneer it's still 'my boy won whatever, he was robbed'. Which is the sort of selfish fan attitude which drags boxing down as a sport.

      On defence being boring, it depends. To me a boxer who can attack to KO standard yet still be defensively responsible is the pinnacle of boxing skill. Crawford is a great example of this but because he is so good potential top opponents shy away from fighting him so we are yet to see his best. To see boxers like him at their best depends on the quality of the opposition which is the same in any sport, the best show their skills against quality opposition.

      Thanks for the topic, it's a good one.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post

        When everybody is setting you straight about this the problem most likely lies with you not us.
        Your reading comprehension just isn't very good if you read that and those were your initial replies. Same goes for a few others. Most have had some good responses though. That's how discussions go, a little back and forth, exchanging of ideas.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Rockin' View Post

          And what criteria does a judge look for before determining the winner of a close round? You say that 6 rounds are determined this way in so many 12 round bouts. What are they? ...........Rockin'
          All that matters is who did the most damage. Analyzing that can lead to reasonable people differing. But yeah the only way to score a fight, or a round, is by judging who landed the best/hardest/most etc punches in the round. That's literally all it is man.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post
            Well defense is one is the scoring criteria, so there’s that.

            A good defense will often neutralise their opponents effective aggression.

            And a good defense will offence allow a fighter to dictate the pace of a fight, which is ring gernalship.

            So a good defense alone can give a fighter the advantage in 3 of the 4 scoring criteria.

            Having a good defense is arguably the most important thing in boxing.

            So that is why.


            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.
            Rockin' likes this.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Richard G View Post

              My favourite nagging point, Jeff Horn in his fight with Packy was rewarded for his aggression, even perhaps for just being the aggressor, yet look at the reaction to him being awarded the win. To me this shows that most fans don't give a **** as long as their boy wins, oh some will try to contrive other reasons why Horn didn't win but underneath that veneer it's still 'my boy won whatever, he was robbed'. Which is the sort of selfish fan attitude which drags boxing down as a sport.

              On defence being boring, it depends. To me a boxer who can attack to KO standard yet still be defensively responsible is the pinnacle of boxing skill. Crawford is a great example of this but because he is so good potential top opponents shy away from fighting him so we are yet to see his best. To see boxers like him at their best depends on the quality of the opposition which is the same in any sport, the best show their skills against quality opposition.

              Thanks for the topic, it's a good one.
              Great point on Crawford. And Loma comes to mind with that a bit too. Guys who can be offensive while still being hard to hit and really touch up. I thought Horn won that fight 7-5, maybe it was a draw at 6-6, but I thought the right man won. He bullied Pac for a lot of those rounds and landed some good shots.

              The truth is that some people will never score a fight against their guy. When a fight starts I really don't care who is who. I'm just scoring the action and let the better man win. It's not that big of a deal.

              People giving certain guys every close round in all their fights is just bizarre to me. Turns 6-6 fights into 9-3 and 10-2 wins.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Boxing-1013 View Post

                Your reading comprehension just isn't very good if you read that and those were your initial replies. Same goes for a few others. Most have had some good responses though. That's how discussions go, a little back and forth, exchanging of ideas.
                Whatever you say.

                You win, man. It's tribalism, the slick bruvvas are overrated and not really that good.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Just the way of the times.

                  If you look at history through a long scope rather than just gloved or just color film it becomes pretty clear the way people fight and the perception of fighting has more to do with everything going on outside of the ring than in the ring.

                  We live in a pansy ass time. The youth say **** like masculinity is evil. Let's all bully bullies now. Racism is everywhere, sexism is everywhere, **** and transphobia is everywhere, we are all victims and aggression so small even the victims call it micro is worthy of nonstop news coverage. Of course more people like dancers than punchers.

                  Similarly to our first time boxing fell in love with defense. Right around that time the modern English accent was being invented....specifically so Englishmen would sound softer and less intimidating. The people were pansifing on purpose, boxing learned defense. People hardened up on purpose, boxing became a chin sport again. Just the way it goes. Trannies, who are less than a % of the population, need coddled and it is your moral obligation to? Defense is praised. **** goes hand-in-hand.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Marchegiano View Post
                    Just the way of the times.

                    If you look at history through a long scope rather than just gloved or just color film it becomes pretty clear the way people fight and the perception of fighting has more to do with everything going on outside of the ring than in the ring.

                    We live in a pansy ass time. The youth say **** like masculinity is evil. Let's all bully bullies now. Racism is everywhere, sexism is everywhere, **** and transphobia is everywhere, we are all victims and aggression so small even the victims call it micro is worthy of nonstop news coverage. Of course more people like dancers than punchers.

                    Similarly to our first time boxing fell in love with defense. Right around that time the modern English accent was being invented....specifically so Englishmen would sound softer and less intimidating. The people were pansifing on purpose, boxing learned defense. People hardened up on purpose, boxing became a chin sport again. Just the way it goes. Trannies, who are less than a % of the population, need coddled and it is your moral obligation to? Defense is praised. **** goes hand-in-hand.

                    Great post! .............Rockin'
                    Marchegiano likes this.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP