Is the problem with "slick AA's" that their style just doesnt look dominant?

[NakiFan]

They base their style on running backwards around the ring, ducking and diving and landering occasional weak counters.

But the criteria in boxing also takes to account effective agression and other factors.

Slick AA's are nevet agressive, they use a very "beta" style of boxing and never look like the hunter.

They are like a rabbit escaping from a dog at the last minute.

I feel they need to learn to look more agressive in fights.

[DeLorean]

its boxing. there's a point system. not a brawl in a bar.

guys like Rigo can put a stadium to sleep while winning 12-0.

as a judge you can't say "I'm not gonna award him this round because I'm not enjoying this".

clean punching, defense, effective aggression and ring generalship. that's what judges supposedly go by.

it's not a "beta" style. it's just a different style. if the opponent doesnt like it it's up to him to do something not for the judges to bail him out.

[jvsnypes]

Its not about looking dominant. If you have a legit and skilled fighter in front of you, its very seldom anyone will look dominant whether they win or lose. The problem is this, this newer generation of "slick" fighters have not mastered their craft. So there are certain fundamentals they do not execute while using that style. But its not the style itself that is the problem. Leonard, Holmes, Ali, Hearns, Robinson, and many black fighters throughout the history of the sport used that slick style of boxing, and they were dominant with it. And many of those fighters are considered all time greats. The other problem is the opponents who can't adapt to fighting against the "slick" style fighter. They have not mastered their craft either. As an aggressive fighter, you should know the fundamentals of cutting off the ring and forcing your opponent into your style of fight. Duran, Chavez,Sr, Hagler and many more were masters of it. So do not just blame the fighters. Blame these trainers for not teaching the basic fundamentals of the sweet science.

[Lester Tutor]

They base their style on running backwards around the ring, ducking and diving and landering occasional weak counters.

But the criteria in boxing also takes to account effective agression and other factors.

Slick AA's are nevet agressive, they use a very "beta" style of boxing and never look like the hunter.

They are like a rabbit escaping from a dog at the last minute.

I feel they need to learn to look more agressive in fights.

Which boxers are you referring to? "AA" as in African Americans? You're acknowledging that there are other styles AA''s portray in the sport? Good job! That's like saying the problem with V8 engine automobile's is that there aren't affordable for everyone? but there are different cylinder options and more affordable for everyone to enjoy?

Or a race bait thread yet again?

[Lester Tutor]

Its not about looking dominant. If you have a legit and skilled fighter in front of you, its very seldom anyone will look dominant whether they win or lose. The problem is this, this newer generation of "slick" fighters have not mastered their craft. So there are certain fundamentals they do not execute while using that style. But its not the style itself that is the problem. Leonard, Holmes, Ali, Hearns, Robinson, and many black fighters throughout the history of the sport used that slick style of boxing, and they were dominant with it. And many of those fighters are considered all time greats. The other problem is the opponents who can't adapt to fighting against the "slick" style fighter. They have not mastered their craft either. As an aggressive fighter, you should know the fundamentals of cutting off the ring and forcing your opponent into your style of fight. Duran, Chavez,Sr, Hagler and many more were masters of it. So do not just blame the fighters. Blame these trainers for not teaching the basic fundamentals of the sweet science.

I would agree with this 100%. Depending on the consistency of the fighter, I'd say "slickness" can be used for mockery, strategy, confusion, etc., but yes it would seem it's the have the other fighter play their game. I don't recall Mayweather Jr. ever being slick.

He was just so good and focused on tactical points that the accuracy superseded any need to show off unnecessary movement or "fun." Slickness is subjectIve as well. We would need to agree on which moves are considered slick. For instance rolling in the deep or from an incoming attack from the outside and how it's done etc...

I would say Lomas and Rigo are the most slick in the game. Lomas can shift position effortlessly to confuse his opponenta in a matter of seconds which I like the call Turbo mode or when Lomas drops his opponent''s guard and attacks. Those could be viewed as slick because it's consistent.

Or, Rigo''s 180 slip roll from West to East around his opponent in a second is ridiculously skilled. I remember seeing Floyd doing that when he was PBF, but not as fast. Of course Rigo is smaller so the perception will be faster. Or when Rigo for fun and I mean literally he rolled around Amagasa and got clicked. That mover was unnecessary and he got clipped and dropped because of it. He does that at times before he pushed his luck. Was that trying to be slick? Sure...

Or, Lamond Peterson against Garcia. Showoff slickness with defense at best and then pushing his offense harder in the late rounds... is that slick? Saw many mistakes in Peterson''s game...

Floyd in Marquez? Slickness or just a different class?

Dempsey? Not sure what the point is for "AA" and slickness... hence a race bait thread or just acknowledgement for the amount American based figgters? Or Lara or Joshua? Confused with AA...

[jvsnypes]

I would agree with this 100%. Depending on the consistency of the fighter, I'd say "slickness" can be used for mockery, strategy, confusion, etc., but yes it would seem it's the have the other fighter play their game. I don't recall Mayweather Jr. ever being slick.

He was just so good and focused on tactical points that the accuracy superseded any need to show off unnecessary movement or "fun." Slickness is subjectIve as well. We would need to agree on which moves are considered slick. For instance rolling in the deep or from an incoming attack from the outside and how it's done etc...

I would say Lomas and Rigo are the most slick in the game. Lomas can shift position effortlessly to confuse his opponenta in a matter of seconds which I like the call Turbo mode or when Lomas drops his opponent''s guard and attacks. Those could be viewed as slick because it's consistent.

Or, Rigo''s 180 slip roll from West to East around his opponent in a second is ridiculously skilled. I remember seeing Floyd doing that when he was PBF, but not as fast. Of course Rigo is smaller so the perception will be faster. Or when Rigo for fun and I mean literally he rolled around Amagasa and got clicked. That mover was unnecessary and he got clipped and dropped because of it. He does that at times before he pushed his luck. Was that trying to be slick? Sure...

Or, Lamond Peterson against Garcia. Showoff slickness with defense at best and then pushing his offense harder in the late rounds... is that slick? Saw many mistakes in Peterson''s game...

Floyd in Marquez? Slickness or just a different class?

Dempsey? Not sure what the point is for "AA" and slickness... hence a race bait thread or just acknowledgement for the amount American based figgters? Or Lara or Joshua? Confused with AA...

Great insight and breakdown. I think when people criticize slick fighters, they need to be more specific to exactly how they define slickness. And yes, I agree that Lomas and Rigo are the most slick in the sport. Actually, they are what I would consider masters of the sweet science. But to me, Pernell Sweet Pea Whitaker was the definition of what a slick fighter was suppose to be. And there was nothing slick about Floyd. He was simply a strictly fundamental fighter who had mastered his craft. James Lights Out Toney was another fighter very similar in his prime.

[Lester Tutor]

Great insight and breakdown. I think when people criticize slick fighters, they need to be more specific to exactly how they define slickness. And yes, I agree that Lomas and Rigo are the most slick in the sport. Actually, they are what I would consider masters of the sweet science. But to me, Pernell Sweet Pea Whitaker was the definition of what a slick fighter was suppose to be. And there was nothing slick about Floyd. He was simply a strictly fundamental fighter who had mastered his craft. James Lights Out Toney was another fighter very similar in his prime.

I agree with Sweet Pea. And Toney. Imho, I find Leonard Bundu very slick. Problem was Bundu's age and no work in the states. But he''s the fastest Imo to switch southie to orthodox quickly and comfortably without fear. Doesn't work against elite boxers at the age, but Imo a younger Bundu wouldve gave Thurman and Spence more work. Keith doesn't get a lot of credit for giving Bundu''s L.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Great insight and breakdown. I think when people criticize slick fighters, they need to be more specific to exactly how they define slickness. And yes, I agree that Lomas and Rigo are the most slick in the sport. Actually, they are what I would consider masters of the sweet science. But to me, Pernell Sweet Pea Whitaker was the definition of what a slick fighter was suppose to be. And there was nothing slick about Floyd. He was simply a strictly fundamental fighter who had mastered his craft. James Lights Out Toney was another fighter very similar in his prime.

Explain the pull counter then, how he was deceptive in appearing much closer to his opponents than he really was by leaning in, only to land the counter straight right hand when guys took the bait.

Explain how he was able to mystify his opponents with the jab to the pit of the stomach, get them to bite into a rhythm of trying to pick it off, only for Mayweather to come back up top with a left hook or a straight right hand.

Or blocking his opponent's line of vision with his jab to set up the lead right. This was a large part of Mayweather's game, maybe your not remembering that but it's laughable to even think he wasn't slick.

[Lester Tutor]

Explain the pull counter then, how he was deceptive in appearing much closer to his opponents than he really was by leaning in, only to land the counter straight right hand when guys took the bait.

Explain how he was able to mystify his opponents with the jab to the pit of the stomach, get them to bite into a rhythm of trying to pick it off, only for Mayweather to come back up top with a left hook or a straight right hand.

Or blocking his opponent's line of vision with his jab to set up the lead right. This was a large part of Mayweather's game, maybe your not remembering that but it's laughable to even think he wasn't slick.

Those are masterful techniques in range, wouldn't call them slick. By describing those moves as slick means that "slickness" would be limited to elites only imo.

I completely forgot one thing about Floyd at any weight. His style of rope'a'dope elusiveness was slick because he would toy with fighters while keeping a smile and having them miss. Cotto vs Floyd is an all time fav. Played Cotto''s game

[Robbie Barrett]

Another race thread. FFS