Is the slick defensive style inherently superior?

[Light_Speed]

There is not one style in boxing that is superior to the others. That's why it's such a great sport.

[[SyrianUser]]

Apparently yes

[Spray_resistant]

You're saying this under the presumption that it's easy to be a genuine slick, defensive fighter. It's not. There are fighters who would love not to get their face beaten up every fight, but they have no choice. They're blood and guts warriors, by default.

Arturo Gatti tried incorporating slickness and defense and it didn't work. Some fighters just have no rhythm and athletic ability to move around and at best do some bob and weaving like Joe Frazier. A lot of em' have heavy feet (i.e. Powlak last night as one example)

There are a lot of fighters trying to do the Shoulder roll now like Floyd, but most of them can't do it as effectively or consistently.

Fighters use what they have and if they are not as naturally quick and reflexive yes they have to employ a different style although it is not relevant to the topic what they would do if they had different attributes.

I am just asking if it is always better which seems to be a popular opinion and yes they take more punishment but its about winning and Winning while taking a shots>>>> losing while looking pretty slipping and rolling

[-Kev-]

Mayweather and Hopkins alone can go around any era and wipe out most brawlers. Sure they'd lose to 1 or 2, but with modern rules/12 rounds, I can see them beating just about any brawling/come forward fighter in a fair weight class for both fighters, and of course with OST. Out of 500 fights against brawlers, they'd probably go 490[376 KO's]-10[1] combined(1 bullshit premature ref stoppage in a fighters hometown while Mayweather/Hopkins are close to retirement].

[F l i c k e r]

It helps.

I don't think it's the best. You still need some form of offense.

Whitaker with a better offense would be rated a waaaaaay higher than he is.

[cupocity303]

It would be very nice if boxing had a win-loss record between every style.


For example Defensive vs Brawler:

Defensive: Wins against Brawlers: 15,678
Brawlers: Wins against Defensive fighters: 4,593


Who knows, maybe my numbers aren't too far off from the truth.

The difference between Defensive Vs Brawlers is that brawlers will always be more physically imposing and intimidating. A lot of em' have massive upper bodies because of their different training methods.

The Defensive Slick boxer is there to have an easier time, under the system of Boxing. He may score a Ko, but there is even a better chance that he will just coast to victory, outpointing the other guy.

Brawlers win decisions also, sure, but their whole style is based on inflicting damage and coming to destroy the other guy. That's why I have always been saying that 9 out of 10, the Brawler is the more effective guy in real life situation, outside the ring.

Nobody wants to *** with Tyson or Edison Miranda for that matter (even though he lost to a non-puncher in Andre Ward). But plenty have no problem stepping up to Floyd Mayweather or Andre Ward, even though they too may kick their ass. What's Floyd gonna do, shoulder roll in front of them? He would have to abandon his whole style of Boxing in a real life situation. Tyson, Miranda, Andrade just will do what they always do, in the ring to fight off a agitator in the club or some social gathering.

[ajohnz]

It would be very nice if boxing had a win-loss record between every style.


For example Defensive vs Brawler:

Defensive: Wins against Brawlers: 15,678
Brawlers: Wins against Defensive fighters: 4,593


Who knows, maybe my numbers aren't too far off from the truth.

i like this idea. but foresee it being hard to officially determine who is a brawler and who is a defender. would there be some kind of formula involved calcuating variables such as punches thrown, times opponent landed, etc.

[ajohnz]

The difference between Defensive Vs Brawlers is that brawlers will always be more physically imposing and intimidating. A lot of em' have massive upper bodies because of their different training methods.

The Defensive Slick boxer is there to have an easier time, under the system of Boxing. He may score a Ko, but there is even a better chance that he will just coast to victory, outpointing the other guy.

Brawlers win decisions also, sure, but their whole style is based on inflicting damage and coming to destroy the other guy. That's why I have always been saying that 9 out of 10, the Brawler is the more effective guy in real life situation, outside the ring.

Nobody wants to *** with Tyson or Edison Miranda for that matter (even though he lost to a non-puncher in Andre Ward). But plenty have no problem stepping up to Floyd Mayweather or Andre Ward, even though they too may kick their ass. What's Floyd gonna do, shoulder roll in front of them? He would have to abandon his whole style of Boxing in a real life situation. Tyson, Miranda, Andrade just will do what they always do, in the ring to fight off a agitator in the club or some social gathering.

saying a style would be better for a bar fight and saying it would be better in a boxing ring are two very different things though

[cupocity303]

Fighters use what they have and if they are not as naturally quick and reflexive yes they have to employ a different style although it is not relevant to the topic what they would do if they had different attributes.

I am just asking if it is always better which seems to be a popular opinion and yes they take more punishment but its about winning and Winning while taking a shots>>>> losing while looking pretty slipping and rolling

No, I was just respond to your, "Is the slick defensive style inherently superior? Also if it was there would almost never be any top fighters using a different style.", part of the comment. You were implying that if the Slick, defensive style is superior, then nobody would fight differently and everyone would fight like a slick, defensive guy.

To which I responded, that it's not that easy, citing guys like Arturo Gatti, who tried to change his Blood & Guts ways, and was semi-successful with it against C-Level fighters only.

There are some fighters who slip and roll and avoid the big punches, and lose fights all the time. But those guys are mostly journeyman who may have had better success if they had better managers, and didn't have to fight on one week notices, against prepared prospects.

[cupocity303]

saying a style would be better for a bar fight and saying it would be better in a boxing ring are two very different things though

Yes, obviously. I was just making a general statement.

In Boxing only, Slick, Defensive >>> Brawler. Cotto showed it last night, and he isn't the slickest or the most defensive. That's the norm.

The exception would be what Margarito did to him, A rocky-esque come back to break him down like he was Apollo Creed.

And if you're known as a Slick, defensive fighter but are constantly in close battles against non-slick guys, then maybe you're not a real slick, defensive Boxer to begin with.