No style has an advantage over Joe Calzaghe's style

[Super_Lightweight]

actually, it does - i feel a lot better about it

I guess you're just happy for some strange reason, even though Joe put a beatdown on Lacy, not Hopkins.

[baya]

I guess you're just happy for some strange reason, even though Joe put a beatdown on Lacy, not Hopkins.

strange? its relative, one of the worst ownage jobs w/ elites in the ring was w/ tito and hopkins and it became one of the worst one-sided affairs i've witnessed. this surpassed that by far, its not that strange.

its like, hey, i'm not the worst, i'm 2nd to the worst ... man i'm a ****en loser.

[SquareCircle]

Being a defensive southpaw is a style, bud.

super lightweight. boxing styles and stance are two different things.

here's a few basic styles

swarmer-
The swarmer is identified by his non-stop aggression and pressure on the inside. The swarmer throws more punches than a slugger, usually wearing his opponents down rather than blowing them out. Some examples of the swarmer style are Jake LaMotta, Rocky Marciano, Dempsey, and Joe Frazier. (some may argue the last two as sluggers but they were swarmer/slugger hybrids, much like mike tyson)

slugger-
The slugger lacks the exquisite boxing skills of the fancy boxer types, the slugger is characterized primarily by his punching power. Examples of the slugger style are Rocky Graziano, Sonny Liston, and George Foreman.

boxer-
A boxer also called "pure boxers" are charactarized by excellent mobility and ability to fight at a range coupled with excellent technical and defensive ability on the inside or out. these fighters are usually tall, rangy in and out type of fighters. Billy Conn, Muhammad Ali, and Pernell Whitaker are good examples of pure boxers.

boxer-puncher
"boxer-puncher".
the boxer puncher possesses many of the qualities of the boxer, hand speed, often an outstanding jab, combination and/or counter-punching skills, better defense and accuracy than a slugger, while possessing slugger type power. In general the boxer-puncher lacks the mobility and defensive expertise of the pure boxer. Examples of the boxer-puncher are Joe Louis, Ray Robinson, Alexis Arguello, Tommy Hearns, Erik Morales.

typically, but not always, Boxers beat Sluggers, Sluggers beat Swarmers, and Swarmers beat Boxers. It depends on the level of skill each man possesses as to how any bout will turn out, but the contrast in styles does offer a distinct advantage or dis-advantage. It is much like the ancient Chinese "rock, scissors, paper" scheme. One style is better than another against a specific type of opponent, but weaker against the other. swarmers generally beat boxers because of the contrast in styles. Boxers prefer to maneuver at long range while a swarmer crowds him, smothering his punches as he forces his way inside where the boxer is less comfortable. boxer-punchers also seem to have less trouble with swarmers than pure boxers since their greater power discourages much of the swarmers aggression. Boxer-punchers are somewhat less successful against big sluggers, since they often lack the defense or mobility of the boxing stylist.

[Super_Lightweight]

strange? its relative, one of the worst ownage jobs w/ elites in the ring was w/ tito and hopkins and it became one of the worst one-sided affairs i've witnessed. this surpassed that by far, its not that strange.

Except that's not true. Tito was stopped badly. To say Lacy-Joe surpassed that "by far" is very inaccurate. I don't think it surpassed it at all. But that's what I think.

But I'm not hatin on you or Tito or anything. I understand where you're coming from.

[Super_Lightweight]

Stance is part of a style and has a lot to do with how a fight unfolds. Limiting styles to such limited terms as slugger, swarmer, boxer and boxer-puncher is ineffectual.

Boxing styles go a lot deeper and are more complex than that. Guys like Pernell and Oscar would be different in an important stylistic way in they had different stances. If Oscar fought with his natural power hand (his left) ****ed back like a normal southpaw then he would not have a big left hook like he does now.

Stance is a part of style. Tarver's southpaw stance, height, and defensive orientation is part of what makes him a troublesome target.

[SquareCircle]

just admit it..you thought defensive southpaw was an actual style.

[oldgringo]

Except that's not true. Tito was stopped badly. To say Lacy-Joe surpassed that "by far" is very inaccurate. I don't think it surpassed it at all. But that's what I think.

But I'm not hatin on you or Tito or anything. I understand where you're coming from.

I agree with you here. Hopkins physically beat up and outclassed Trinidad, the same way Calzaghe did Lacy. Only difference being Hopkins knocked out Trinidad, whereas Calzaghe could not do that with Lacy (although he came close).

The more impressive aspect of Calzaghes performance was that it came against a man who is, for the most part, larger and stronger than him. Not to say that Tito was a strong fighter at 160 either because he was pre-Hop.

[Dick Cheney]

southpaw is a STANCE. defensive is a STYLE. "Defensive" is a ****ing ADJECTIVE you moron, describing the stance.

[Zab Super Judah]

slick, crafty boxer-puncher/counterpunching/clinching hybrid, with blazing handspeed and good defense...I was trying to think of a style that could have an advantage over calzaghe if the fighter arrived in top condition, I was thinking maybe a swarmer/slugger hybrid in top condition but Joe is a very top-notch in and out fighter, with blazing handspeed...fast straight shots like that will nullify a swarmer, and if joe presses the attack after those initial shots land, it's all joe, because no swarmer knows how to fight moving backwards. of course, we all saw what he did to a textbook slugger in Jeff Lacy, so that style has an obvious disadvantage vs joe.

I have come to one conclusion, the only style capable of beating Joe Calzaghe on points or any other way is another boxer puncher-counterpuncher hybrid, and even then nobody has a style advantage. joe's style is, 'solid as a rock' when it comes to other people having an advantage over him style-wise.

someone with quick hands would give him problems

[baya]

to hell with the both of you and your sound logic.