Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do people overrate 'defensive' boxers today?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post

    Whatever you say.

    You win, man. It's tribalism, the slick bruvvas are overrated and not really that good.
    Again, not what I said at all lol

    Comment


    • #52
      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.
      I like and appreciate defense. I just don't like when certain fighters, for no obvious reason, get almost every close round in their fights. It's weird honestly.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Nash out View Post
        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.
        Generally speaking the guy coming forward will be 'effective', that is is the position we would all want to be in, in a fight. Backing the other guy up, and dictating to him.

        But yes you can still get touched up and lose rounds as the aggressive fighter. Floyd a great recent example of a counterpuncher who could clearly win rounds while fighting off the back foot.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Boxing-1013 View Post

          It's not rocket science man - you only score points by what you LAND. That's how a fight goes. If you dodge 10 punches, and I dodge 2, but neither one of us lands a punch - you are trying to say that you won that round? Lol, nothing happened
          What happened to points for aggression?

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Richard G View Post

            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.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by Boxing-1013 View Post

              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?

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Nash out View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #58
                  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.
                  Boxing-1013 likes this.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    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.

                    ​​​​​​

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Toyman View Post
                      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

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP