Boxer-puncher domination on boxing.

[Silence]

Almost all of top level fighters are boxer-puncher/counter puncher like Canelo, Crawford, Usyk, Fury, Spence, Lomachenko, Kambosos, Golovkin, Taylor etc.. How many out-boxer, swarmer or slugger in p4p lists? Almost zero. All p4p fighters are boxer-punchers and they utterly dominated the boxing. Wilder is slugger and got dominated by Fury who can box and brawl. Saunders and Plant are out-boxers and got dominated by Canelo who can box and brawl. Porter was like a bit swarmer and got dominated by Crawford who can box and brawl.

Beating a boxer-puncher is really hard. Especially southpaw boxer-punchers like Usyk are nearly impossible to beat. I like that style.

[HeadShots]

Usyk is a pure boxer. Like Ali. there has never been a southpaw heavyweight champ. something to think about. is it an advantage or not?

They are never flat footed and sitting down on punches. Loma is also more of their ilk. pure boxer.

Fury is more of a boxer/swarmer. he's either light on his feet boxing or he's mauling someone with his body and inside fighting. His punches are too slow to be a true counter-puncher.

Golovkin is boxer puncher(canelo 2, lemiux etc) / swarmer (brook, vanes, monroe etc)

Canelo is a boxer puncher to a T. Donaire is a boxer puncher.

Anthony Joshua is a boxer puncher and got beat by a swarmer(Ruiz) and a pure boxer (Usyk)

[Haka]

Almost all of top level fighters are boxer-puncher/counter puncher like Canelo, Crawford, Usyk, Fury, Spence, Lomachenko, Kambosos, Golovkin, Taylor etc.. How many out-boxer, swarmer or slugger in p4p lists? Almost zero. All p4p fighters are boxer-punchers and they utterly dominated the boxing. Wilder is slugger and got dominated by Fury who can box and brawl. Saunders and Plant are out-boxers and got dominated by Canelo who can box and brawl. Porter was like a bit swarmer and got dominated by Crawford who can box and brawl.

Beating a boxer-puncher is really hard. Especially southpaw boxer-punchers like Usyk are nearly impossible to beat. I like that style.

Loma and Kambo aren't punchers. More like boxer-swarmers

[Lomadeaux]

There has never been a southpaw heavyweight champ.

What?.........

[Silence]

What?.........

He is an idiot. Just ignore him.

[GrandpaBernard]

just recently we had a p4p king outboxer

Mayweather

but he was a mix of outboxer/counterpuncher

[Silence]

just recently we had a p4p king outboxer

Mayweather

but he was a mix of outboxer/counterpuncher

He was also helluva inside fighter bro. He was counter puncher. Out-boxers can't fight inside and they wait punch like a sissy. Even swarmer Hatton couldn't dominate him inside.

[GrandpaBernard]

He was also helluva inside fighter bro. He was counter puncher. Out-boxers can't fight inside and they wait punch like a sissy. Even swarmer Hatton couldn't dominate him inside.

yeah Floyd was versatile with a great jab

goat jab downstairs

he had a variety of jabs upstairs

Marquez was a purer counterpuncher. He couldn't outfight the way Floyd did

[billeau2]

Almost all of top level fighters are boxer-puncher/counter puncher like Canelo, Crawford, Usyk, Fury, Spence, Lomachenko, Kambosos, Golovkin, Taylor etc.. How many out-boxer, swarmer or slugger in p4p lists? Almost zero. All p4p fighters are boxer-punchers and they utterly dominated the boxing. Wilder is slugger and got dominated by Fury who can box and brawl. Saunders and Plant are out-boxers and got dominated by Canelo who can box and brawl. Porter was like a bit swarmer and got dominated by Crawford who can box and brawl.

Beating a boxer-puncher is really hard. Especially southpaw boxer-punchers like Usyk are nearly impossible to beat. I like that style.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. But another definition of the term is how we organize knowledge and understanding. So for example, when looking at a goldfish and a cat, there is no objective THINGS called "fish" and "Mammals," because those terms have been invented to help scientists organize life into useful categories. Certain dinosaurs had scales, bird beaks and features associated with Mammals... and if you look at a crawfish compared to a lobster they might be similar, or maybe the Crawfish is more similar to an insect, or shrimp... MY point is that when using categories, in any field of knowledge, one must never get carried away with having to abide by these categories as though they are absolute, they are not absolute and only serve to make it easier for us to categorize information.

Fighters take on different approaches that have changed since a lot of the categories we use have been used. For example, take a fighter like David Haye, Martinez, even Wilder... all of whom are "ambush fighters," Fighters that like to stay away and attack at will across the ring when it suites them. You really never saw this type of fighter before relatively recent boxing history. What makes the most sense is to look at fighters primary means and then simply understand their skills. Sometimes categories mesh... Wilder is a pure Puncher. He also likes to ambush. Usyk, Canelo, etc are boxer punchers with different skill sets. James Toney would be a boxer puncher with counter punching skills. I don't think you can ever call a fighter a "counter puncher" because counter punching is a skill set... One used primarily by boxer punchers with excellent timing.

Some categories are just rare. Someone like Whitaker was a defensive specialist... reason being Whitaker could win fights defensively... He could also be called a pure boxer.

Or someone like a swarmer... Golovkin might be called a swarmer.

Boxer punchers, as a rule, are neither pure boxers (Jimmy Young is a great example of a pure boxer) nor, pure punchers. Does not mean they cannot punch. Roy JOnes is a great example of a boxer puncher who could box with the best and punch with the best... JOnes could also be creditd with using ambush tactics...

The point is, you can use these categories if you remember to emphasize the primary ability/strategy the fighter depends on, then you can confirm that the fighter has other skills.

Final example, Foreman compared to Liston. George could cut the ring and fight at all ranges but he was dependent on his punch. I would call Foreman a pure puncher. Liston, who could punch as well as Foreman imo, was a boxer puncher. Liston depended on combinations and his jab to finish fights....

[billeau2]

He was also helluva inside fighter bro. He was counter puncher. Out-boxers can't fight inside and they wait punch like a sissy. Even swarmer Hatton couldn't dominate him inside.

I would call Mayweather a pure boxer with outstanding defensive capabilities. Pernell Whitaker could literally win a fight with defensive skills... this made Whitaker extremely rare and I would go so far as to call Whitaker a defensive specialist, albiet a pure boxer. Mayweather by comparison was a pure boxer with a variety of skill sets.

One might ask: "how do you win a fight defensively?" Watch Klitsko versus Fury... Fury beats Klitsko by feinting, footwork, timing, to such a degree that Klitsko cannot throw a punch properly in many rounds. This is the kind of thing Whitaker would do regularly... So in a round like that, if Fury hits Klitsko once with a good jab, the round goes to him. What actually won the round was shutting down Klitsko though, if this makes sense.

Pure Boxers are rare. Defensive specialists even more so... Pep, Whitaker... Not too many more I can think of.