Strongest Defense Against Strongest Offense (Karpov/Kasparov = Floyd/Pac?)

[maddox22]

These two guys are extreme opposite of each other in the sense of what their roles are in a fight.

This actually reminds me of the rivalry between Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov of the chess world when Kasparov was a challenger for the world championship crown.

Kasparov had a really difficult time defeating Karpov. He was only able to finally defeat Karpov after adapting to Karpov's style of holding a position, avoiding sacrifices, and playing defensively - even boringly. And finally Kasparov beat Karpov.

Does this mean the same for Pacquiao fighting Mayweather? Do the same principles apply for these two forms of battle?

[NYU Alum.]

These two guys are extreme opposite of each other in the sense of what their roles are in a fight.

This actually reminds me of the rivalry between Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov of the chess world when Kasparov was a challenger for the world championship crown.

Kasparov had a really difficult time defeating Karpov. He was only able to finally defeat Karpov after adapting to Karpov's style of holding a position, avoiding sacrifices, and playing defensively - even boringly. And finally Kasparov beat Karpov.

Does this mean the same for Pacquiao fighting Mayweather? Do the same principles apply for these two forms of battle?

Nah, 'cause chess ain't decided by judges.

I can see a scenario where PAC wins simply on aggression, and at the same time Mo**ey Mayweather is not having a good night either. From the recent trend with the way judges are going about scoring fights, I kinda like PAC's chances, hehe.

[Gonzalez_Boxing]

Interesting analogy. I don't play much chess. Can you tell me how much of a challenge it was for Kasparov to adjust to a different style of play? Do you think Manny could tweak his style in the amount of time given?

If you switch his style up too much and he loses, then Manny along with Roach will be criticized for not playing to their strength. By the same token if they win by switching up their strategy, they will be labeled genius.

It's a tough call.

[maddox22]

Interesting analogy. I don't play much chess. Can you tell me how much of a challenge it was for Kasparov to adjust to a different style of play? Do you think Manny could tweak his style in the amount of time given?

If you switch his style up too much and he loses, then Manny along with Roach will be criticized for not playing to their strength. By the same token if they win by switching up their strategy, they will be labeled genius.

It's a tough call.

Kasparov's technique is very aggressive, unafraid to make sacrifices here and there - even sacrificing his Queen to compensate for a favorable position and a sure win. His games were mostly flashy and shining out throughout tournaments. They were amazing, exciting to watch, breath taking, etc...

Karpov was the master of positional and defensive play. His technique was very very solid. However his fights were also very boring and were a lot of times criticized for not going for the kill given the opportunity. But when a game against Karpov reached more than 40 moves, that usually means the opponent is losing.

So aggressive and amazing as Kasparov was, he just wasn't able to implement his technique against Karpov effectively. For every offensive move he makes Karpov always had a counter-attack of his own or even just refute the attack and still play solidly and eventually gain the position and win. Anyway it was a series of games so Kasparov later realized he needed to change his style of playing. He eventually adapted to Karpov's style of positional and solid play. He stopped throwing sacrifices and played soundly and carefully. Eventually he gained more wins and won the crown.

It is just interesting to note that for each of Kasparov's games against defensive players like Karpov and Kramnik he would always resort to adjusting his aggressiveness and adapting to a more sound and careful play.

Somehow I think chess has some common ground with boxing - like any other sport but I think the basics of defensive and aggressive play are exhibited better by no other game than chess.

If this theory is true or this comparison is relevant then that would mean Pacquiao cannot in any circumstance beat Mayweather by using his aggressive technique.

Is this why Roach said they needed to make some adjustments?

[maddox22]

** bump **

[ThePunchingBag]

These two guys are extreme opposite of each other in the sense of what their roles are in a fight.

This actually reminds me of the rivalry between Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov of the chess world when Kasparov was a challenger for the world championship crown.

Kasparov had a really difficult time defeating Karpov. He was only able to finally defeat Karpov after adapting to Karpov's style of holding a position, avoiding sacrifices, and playing defensively - even boringly. And finally Kasparov beat Karpov.

Does this mean the same for Pacquiao fighting Mayweather? Do the same principles apply for these two forms of battle?

I kind of think Pacquiao will adjust to Mayweather and wait for Mayweather to come to him instead.

Who would look like a coward/***** in that situation?

The guy who has KO'd his last 3 opponents or the guy who went 12 rounds with a blown up lightweight on his back foot most of the time?

Eventually the crowd will boo, the judges won't look favorably at Mayweather because of the above and Mayweather will be pressured to attack. That's what I call psychological pressure. Pacquiao can win playing Mayweather's waiting game just based off the public perception of both fighters.

The problem lies with Pacquiao's tendency to give fans their money's worth and Mayweather's apathetic nature for his fans. If Pacquiao can resist the urge, he can make Mayweather look bad and fight in an offensive style that he's uncomfortable with.