Can the "slick" style be beaten?

[NUCLEAR]

I guess ducking and cherry picking is considered slick nowadays

[CatchAndShoot]

You guys are in serious denial. All you have to go on are some manipulated slow motion videos. The fight happened in real time not slow motion where some idiot, who doesn't know boxing, makes guesses as to what is a landed blow and what is not. Floyd controlled Manny with his movement and jab which was landing easier than even I expected it to. Yeah, Manny landed the heavier blows but Floyd landed some pretty hard blows on Manny as well, which probably explains why Manny fougth more cautiously than he ever had in his entire career.

Floyd easily won that fight. Get over it.

OK, this is how biased, and tremendously incorrectly how bad the fight was scored. For example. In round 7, Manny lands a trmendous left hand in between a shot that Floyd throws. It was a kill shot, and if it weren't for Floyd's chin, it would've wobbled many fighters at WW. Not a single commentator called the shot, and it was the most effective blow in the round, and he landed more, more effective shots in that round, yet the judges gave him that round, and so did a lot of other people. It was an OBVIOUS Manny round, and he lost it!

This is one of the most elephant in the room fights, ever, and everyone fell for the dupe, because they're so blinded by the hype of Floyd, that they couldn't believe that Manny was winning most of the rounds, and landed a lot more cleaner and effective shots. Manny actually did a better job at counter punching than Floyd, and the consensus is that Floyd put on a master class technical performance! Manny's defense in the fight was also brilliant, but he didn't get credit for it!

WTF!

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

who slick and unquestionably has been unbeaten, they dont exist.

Every style can be beaten on any night.

[MASTERBX]

The most successful pro boxing style is the America Style.

[Fury4daWIN]

Very rarely agree with Reloaded, but you're spot on here

Its partially why I challenge the strange consensus on here that boxing is 'hit and not be hit'. It can be, but not necessarily. Sometimes you gotta take some punches to land a bomb (or more effective punch). Boxing is about winning in the boxing ring.

On top of that, theres no perfect fighter. Because fighters are human. Some fighters could be close, but never perfect. As its the fighters that obviously employ styles, it means there can also be no perfect style in practice. In theory you could argue all day, but you wouldn't be right (or wrong).

The thing I like about the saying 'hit and not be hit' is that it can be applied to any style, correctly employed. A really effective come forward fighter will make sure he ships as little punishment as possible when moving in on his target via slips, parries and effective use of smothering. It might not be seen in the same vein, because his opponents will, in the main, be touching him with shots, leading to the impression that they're taking undue punishment, but the basic principle is the same: land your (effective) shots and don't let your opponent land theirs.

It might be applied mostly to boring pot shotters and safety first guys to justify their fighting like that, but it can, in theory, be applied to any type of style. Kovalev for example.

[Johnwoo8686]

OK, this is how biased, and tremendously incorrectly how bad the fight was scored. For example. In round 7, Manny lands a trmendous left hand in between a shot that Floyd throws. It was a kill shot, and if it weren't for Floyd's chin, it would've wobbled many fighters at WW. Not a single commentator called the shot, and it was the most effective blow in the round, and he landed more, more effective shots in that round, yet the judges gave him that round, and so did a lot of other people. It was an OBVIOUS Manny round, and he lost it!

This is one of the most elephant in the room fights, ever, and everyone fell for the dupe, because they're so blinded by the hype of Floyd, that they couldn't believe that Manny was winning most of the rounds, and landed a lot more cleaner and effective shots. Manny actually did a better job at counter punching than Floyd, and the consensus is that Floyd put on a master class technical performance! Manny's defense in the fight was also brilliant, but he didn't get credit for it!

WTF!

I watched several streams of the fight with different commentary. One was a British stream from sky sports, I rewatched HBOs coverage of the fight, and rewatched Showtime's coverage, with all different commentary. None of them had Manny winning that round. I know what shot you're talking about. Manny lands a flush left and Floyd took it like nothing. But what happens for the remainder of the round? Manny does little to nothing and allows Floyd to regain control of the round with his jab and movement. It's like you extreme Pacquiao fans just looked at every thing Manny did and ignored everything Floyd did. So now you have this warped perception of what actually happened. Not even Freddie Roach thinks Manny won that fight and many of Pacquiao's fans have since left the forum.

Pacquiao came closer to beating Morales in their first fight than he did to beating Floyd.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

There's nothing better than watching a slick brotha clown some dude

like when floyd pulls a shoulder roll, makes them miss 4-5 shots, puckers his lips and shakes his head then counters their ass with crisp, clean counters

to me there is nothing better in boxing

By slick ,you mean black.

Why don't you just say that?

Oh.

I guess you were trying to be slick.

[techliam]

The thing I like about the saying 'hit and not be hit' is that it can be applied to any style, correctly employed. A really effective come forward fighter will make sure he ships as little punishment as possible when moving in on his target via slips, parries and effective use of smothering. It might not be seen in the same vein, because his opponents will, in the main, be touching him with shots, leading to the impression that they're taking undue punishment, but the basic principle is the same: land your (effective) shots and don't let your opponent land theirs.

It might be applied mostly to boring pot shotters and safety first guys to justify their fighting like that, but it can, in theory, be applied to any type of style. Kovalev for example.

It is an extremely effective way of fighting, at least in theory. But my point is that 'hit and not be hit' is not the fundamental rule of boxing (as in the sport of boxing), but instead is probably the fundamental rule of the style of 'boxing' (as in, he's a good boxer, counter to brawler etc). People on here have confused the terms.

You've refined the term in your definition though, which strays quite a bit from the original, which i've bolded. This is what boxing is to me really, the guy who has landed most of the effective shots. However, the opponents punches also play a factor in how effective your shots are. If you're landing one or two big right hands a round, but getting outboxed with lighter punches all round, it consistently divides the boxing fanbase. But whilst I like your amended version, it isn't exactly 'hit and not be hit' though, as there are several cases where fighters have landed more of the effective shots, but have been outlanded overall. You can look to the Trout/Canelo and Hopkins/Calzaghe fights for examples.

[pvj]

I was just a kid when they went from 15 rounds to 12, but that was the argument then, it would favor the 'slick' fighter.

The answer is obviously yes, there's so many factors, but it is the prevailing style. I would say 60/40, but just a guess.

[Fury4daWIN]

It is an extremely effective way of fighting, at least in theory. But my point is that 'hit and not be hit' is not the fundamental rule of boxing (as in the sport of boxing), but instead is probably the fundamental rule of the style of 'boxing' (as in, he's a good boxer, counter to brawler etc). People on here have confused the terms.

You've refined the term in your definition though, which strays quite a bit from the original, which i've bolded. This is what boxing is to me really, the guy who has landed most of the effective shots. However, the opponents punches also play a factor in how effective your shots are. If you're landing one or two big right hands a round, but getting outboxed with lighter punches all round, it consistently divides the boxing fanbase. But whilst I like your amended version, it isn't exactly 'hit and not be hit' though, as there are several cases where fighters have landed more of the effective shots, but have been outlanded overall. You can look to the Trout/Canelo and Hopkins/Calzaghe fights for examples.

Perhaps a better term would be: make your opponent fight your fight. That isn't quite as snappy, however!

What I like about the phrase 'hit and not get hit' is that it more or less encapsulates what boxing means as a discipline, as well as providing a great basis for anyone entering this dangerous and unforgiving sport. A fighter can, theoretically, win a fight by letting the opponent exhaust himself by punching him repeatedly on the skull, but that would hardly be representative of what the sport teaches you or what we expect when we tune into a boxing match, as opposed to a bar room brawl or street fight. We like to see a fighter dominate another by employing their skills, whatever they may be, and that generally equates to landing your hurtful or scoring shots without the opponent landing as many of his. That applies as much to a brawler as it does to a potshotter or counter puncher. Occasionally a fighter may win a fight by landing fewer but more hurtful shots on a fighter than they land on him, but that just emphasises the point that boxing is a combat sport and not a points scoring competition.