Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do people overrate 'defensive' boxers today?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Boxing-1013
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrandpaBernard
    replied
    Because the most recent greatest boxer was a defensive wizard

    Leave a comment:


  • Sable&Whitefish
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boxing-1013
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boxing-1013
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • miniq
    replied
    Originally posted by PRINCEKOOL View Post

    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.
    Last edited by miniq; 05-01-2021, 07:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRINCEKOOL
    replied
    Originally posted by miniq View Post

    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'.

    Leave a comment:


  • miniq
    replied
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by miniq; 05-01-2021, 06:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRINCEKOOL
    replied
    Originally posted by hugh grant View Post

    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'.

    Leave a comment:


  • hugh grant
    replied
    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.
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X
TOP