Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do people overrate 'defensive' boxers today?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by Richard G View Post

    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.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by PRINCEKOOL View Post
      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.
      Yes, some aggressive fighters don't get enough credit for their defense. Tyson a great example.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #74
          Because the most recent greatest boxer was a defensive wizard

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Sable&Whitefish View Post


            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.

            Comment

            Working...
            X
            TOP