Lennox Lewis when he was 'on'..

What does aggressor mean to you? If one guy is coming forward and leading the action and another guy is looking to keep him at bay with jabs and time him with counters, what would you label them?

What possible agenda might that be? I'm actually complimenting Lewis here. You people are ****ing nuts. Why pretend Lewis came out gunning for the knockout when that clearly wasn't the case? He played it smart and countered a sloppy aggressive opponent.

 

This is just absurd, lets just distort words to our liking until they are completely meaningless.

In every other instance, the fighter coming forward and leading would be called the "aggressor" and the guy looking to counter and maintain distance would not be. But whatever, what does aggressor to mean you? So do we call counter punchers "effective aggressors" now? Is that the new hip lingo or just over sensitive Lewis fans that want to portray him as something he wasn't in this particular fight?

And Hatton was mostly the aggressor against Pacman. I don't see how anybody could see that any other way. Pacman is on the backfoot, looking to jab andcounter, Hatton is coming forward and leading the action even if ineffective at it.

 

I will watch the fight again tonight and comment accordingly cause my initial response was based on memory.

Well I watched it and you're wrong.

Ruddock moved around in the first round, tried tackling Lewis and until he got knocked out, he was hit with about 10 jabs and 2 power shots before getting caught and going down. It was only after the first half of the round that Ruddock actually hit him was a meaningful punch.

Now if you dispute this, we can break this round down into as many sections as you like and we can discuss each and every one of them. But in terms of who was throwing jabs, meaningful punches, and establishing range, it was Lewis by a lot.

To me the aggressor is the one who actually throws meaningful punches and establishes distance etc, through the use of a jab. By any definition that was Lewis in this particular fight.

 

You actually have to be throwing and landing punches to be the aggressor. It wasn't like Ruddock had Lewis up against the ropes or anything like that, When Ruddock came forward, he got hit, and it wasn't just counters, it was jabs, and when Lewis was throwing punches he wasn't on his back foot, he was moving towards the target.

 

Ruddock was moving forward and pressing the action. He actually lands a big hook to the body and three to the head.

Lennox is just far and away the better boxer. So, anything Ruddock does is turned against him.

If it pleases the audience one could call Ruddock "the aggressive one" rather than "the aggressor" but it's all semantics. Ruddock wanted to be the boss and Lennox let him try to fill that roll.

 

Serious question. Is English your first language? That understanding of the term is way off, and would imply any fighter that throws and lands a punch is an aggressor.

Why would Lewis have to be in peril for his opponent to be called aggressive?

When most fighters throw punches they step into them as a matter of technique. Again, this would imply any fighter that throws a punch is being aggressive. This is silly.

 

Well, good luck with pushing that as the new definition of aggressive. :blood Using that new meaning, I'm sure you have no problem with Maywather, Hopkins, and Wlad being named the most aggressive fighters of all time. You know, being that they land a high percentage, use the jab, and establish distance and all.

 

Well, that's how the fight went down.

No, I really don't think its semantics as "aggressor" is a simple term to define. These guys for whatever reason feel the storyline of the fight has to be an aggressive Lewis smelling weakness, bull rushing Ruddock at the gate and beating him into the canvas, and that a cautious Lewis intelligently timing an open opponent is somehow an insult. Now being forced to view the action in detail, they now have to bend and redefine the term to their means and I'm just left....

:huh

 

You've got the term aggressor mixed up with "effective aggressor" in the sense that the normal meaning of aggressor in boxing, is the guy who is landing punches and controlling the action, not just the guy coming forward.

As for english being my first language, I graduated with an economics/business degree in 1990 and wrote countless essays in doing so, so I'd say my english skills are fine. But thanks for asking. You might want to look into a mirror when asking that question again.

 

The words effective aggressor are apparently lost on you. If we did take your definition, Mayweather may have lost several of his fights.

Look I've read your posts before and you honestly can't be a stupid as you're coming across. Lewis won that first round by hitting Ruddock far more than Ruddock was hitting him, and he landed more jabs. Was Ruddock trying to be the aggressor? yes he was,

Was he successful in his attempt? no he wasn't.

Why, because they were BOTH trying to be the aggressor and Lewis was the one who was successful in doing so.

 

Lewis only won because he hit ruddock with a kidney punch whilst he was on the floor and joe Cortez let him get away with it

 

That's not what happened. Look I've watch the fight twice now. Ruddock came out with a plan of being the aggressor, and Lewis came out with roughly the same plan. When Ruddock threw something Lewis moved out of range at times, and at times Lewis responded with counters, and at times Lewis initiated the action either with jabs or by throwing an over hand right. Quite simply it's not uncommon of both fighters to have roughly the same game plan with one being successful and the other not. That's what happened in this fight.

Look I have no vested interest in whether or not Lewis was or wasn't the aggressor, I'm Canadian and I certainly have a very high regard for both fighters. In fact I would have very much welcomed a Ruddock victory and this may be the best heavyweight fight ever between two Canadian's. But that doesn't influence my assessment of what happened.

 

Of course that's the reason Lewis won that's common knowledge, I mean how else could have possibly have beaten the guy who gave Tyson so much trouble?

 

Holy **** you're different people.

 

Because Tyson had irreparably damaged ruddock duhhhhhhhhh