Applied Pressure Is One Of The Biggest Fluke Concepts In Boxing...

[IntentionalButt]

It's like this WWM - Michael Katsidis used to win fights using unintelligent pressure. He won, because he was stronger and tougher than his opponents. He won in spite of his pressure being applied unintelligently. Any pressure at all from someone with his strength and toughness advantages over these types of opponents was going to be enough to beat these types of opponents.

Then he ran into a couple of career snags. Reevaluated.

He then beat Escobedo - a higher level opponent than any of those he'd beaten using his old style - by applying very intelligent pressure.

[walk with me]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

Hatton would be considered to use effective pressure in fights where his size made up for not being as technically skilled as other fighters, or his opponents either lacked the skill or knowledge to counter it.. Same for Margarito I suppose. When they face a more skilled fighter, or one who uses an effective counter-strategy, their aggression is rendered less effective. Everyone has variations in their styles.

What intelligent pressure is to me is probably subjective, kind of like how people view human intelligence. People say you can't define intelligence as just this or that, because there are different kinds of intelligence.

I'd just call it ineffective or effective I think.

thats exactly the point im trying to make... but it can only be based on the outcome of the fight

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by walk with me

thats exactly the point im trying to make... but it can only be based on the outcome of the fight

Yeah, pretty much I think. I guess if you had a great counter-puncher taking away the effectiveness of a pressure fighter for 11 rounds, then the pressure fighters catches them in the 12th, .........well nevermind...even then someone would say well...the pressure wore down the other guy and got to him finally...

[daydachamp]

floyd the only stick and mover hatton ever faught save malignagi. ecxept when malignagi faught hatton he tried to stick too much and sit down on his punches. plus malignagi was heavily featuring a meaningless shoulder bopping that he does. it's like a baseball player having a hitch in his swing.

[jazzboy]

How about the Thrilla in Manilla. Fraizer applied good pressure but lost the fight? Why cant pressure be good pressure but a fighter loses the fight?

Just a question no need for the flame.

[walk with me]

Originally Posted by jazzboy

How about the Thrilla in Manilla. Fraizer applied good pressure but lost the fight? Why cant pressure be good pressure but a fighter loses the fight?

Just a question no need for the flame.

i agree... i was trying to have someone shed some light on this myself

[pejevan]

Originally Posted by walk with me

Honestly... What The Fuck Is Intelligent Pressure? There Really is no such thing... either you apply pressure and have success or you apply pressure and you dont...

everyone always throws around this "intelligent pressure" term like there is some grand scheme...

when a fighter wins using pressure = intelligent pressure
when a fighter loses using pressure = bad job of applying pressure


I think the concept & the way people use this term is horrible

I think the more appropriate term is "effective pressure". "Intelligent pressure" seems to denote a higher learning, as if there is intelligence involved in it. Example, Tyson's bob and weave style of fighting in his prime is a very effective pressure because it negated his obvious disadvantage, which was size and reach, while at the same time maximized his obvious one which was power, The bob and weave allowed him to close distances against rangier and bigger opponent in order for him to throw his punches. But does that entail intelligence, probably or question mark, however, was it effective, definitely.

Another example, let us dissect Ricky Hatton's clinch , or grapple then punch technique. The technique actually negated his obvious deficiency which was technique or many call here as "sweet science" (another misnomer because definitely there is no science involved in it) while maximizing his obvious limitation which was his reach. Therefore, it was an effective technique or you could say an intelligent one because even though Hatton had limited skillset, he was so successful against 40 something opponenets.

[TFFP]

There are definitely techniques for applying pressure that are intelligent or less so, win or lose in a fight. You can lose because your opponent is simply more talented, it doesn't automatically mean you were sloppy and fought a bad fight, and just because you won it doesn't mean your technique was good either.

I wouldn't take the term 'intelligent' too literally either, just like many boxing terms are kinda whacky. People don't actually have jaws made of glass and intelligent pressure does not mean the guy is Isaac Newton.

[PISTOL STARTER]

I think there are two sides to the argument... though i tend to lean towards the fact that "effective pressure" really is dependant on how good ur opponent is.

In which pressure fighters cant always use the same "pressure" methods or style in every fight. They must tweak that style to suit every opponent they face.

like a poster mentioned before frazier , foreman both used wat would be considered effective pressure against ali yet still lost. Ali was simply too good in nullifying and adapting to that pressure. Against any other opponent they would have had the W next to their names.

[freddy-wak]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

It's obvious you'd think this way. It's the same case with everyone who has absolutely no technical knowledge of boxing.

i aint even gonna finish the thread

[walk with me]

Originally Posted by freddy-wak

i aint even gonna finish the thread

you aint read no posts tho

[warriorking]

Sweet pea wrote a beautiful post!! He told you whats what walkwithme!! successful pressure= julio cesar chavez, uneffective pressure= hatton and he gave you a definition of both!!! END OF THREAD.... NEXT

[slip&counter]

pathetic thread, don't want to be disrespectfull but you sound like you don't understand boxing or at least the styles and the intricacies.

intelligent pressure? go watch JC Chavez career set or James Toney against Micheal Nunn

just pressure, go watch ricky hatton pancaked in his last fight

thats the difference my friend!

edit: someone beat me to it

[David Fanning]

Originally Posted by walk with me

so by your definition.... who is a great pressure fighter then?

Roberto Duran.

[VARG]

Originally Posted by walk with me

exactly... see what im saying....

you cannot put pressure in little compartments by calling good pressure "applied" pressure and bad pressure ...

everyone has a different style and there cant ever be a clear cut definition on it...


for example

margarito (by your guys definition) of pressure is horrendous... he goes in with his face out and takes a lot of damage... but at the same time until he met shane mosley it was extremely effective for him

are you guys starting to understand what im saying? the whole concept of "applied pressure" is purely based on the outcome of the fight

No it isn't. Just because Margarito wins doesnt mean his method of pressure makes it intelligent. It just means that his method of pressure works for him because he has a freakish IRON CHIN.

Maybe if he had some good footwork, feints and head movement his normal method of pressure would be THAT much better...

And the outcome of a fight never says shit about how good a fighter is at what he does, but rather the size of his will and heart and how he used this with the tools that he had.

Margarito is just that. A come forward typical Mexican fighter with a whole lot of heart and will. His skill was decent, but his assests of chin and stamina were levels above normal. Making him a glorified contender/journeyman.