The Three Main Fight Philosophies in Boxing

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Gannicus, Dec 23, 2015.


Page 1 of 4
  1. Gannicus

    Gannicus 2014 Poster of the Year Full Member

    13,452
    2,990
    Mar 4, 2014
    Philosophy 1. Fight for the victory
    Brandon Rios, Gatti-Ward esque. The more archetypical opponent of the old timers. They hit, they get hit. They carry on. They are warriors at the frontline of battle.
    Hagler-Hearns exemplified this.

    Philosophy 2. Outpoint by fighting
    They are looking to outpoint their opponent, but they’re making it an actual fight. This is boxing at its utmost sophistication. Your aggressive fighters are defensively sound, some even aggressive counter punchers of great defensive instinct.

    Roberto Duran
    Sugar Ray Leonard
    Mike Tyson
    Willie Pep
    Jose Napoles
    Vasyl Lomachenko
    Julio Cesar Chavez
    Wilfried Benitez

    Philosophy 3. Outpoint to win
    The very amateur-esque type. Your gameplay is built around running. Whilst running, you’re setting up some pot-shots, which of course are boxing techniques, but ultimately you’re optimising the outpointing element.

    Floyd Mayweather
    Erislandy Lara
    Wladmir Klitschko
    Guillermo Rigondeaux in his most recent performance

    - Absolutely terrible to watch, they take the 'fight' element COMPLETELY out of the game. They're not fighters.
    I don't rate the 'defence' of a boxer as high if he isn't of the first two fight philosophies. Guess what? I can literally run around the ring constantly for 12 rounds and maybe land a good couple of shots on some good boxers.

    The problem we have is that we tend to judge one boxer against another belonging to a different philosophy. This is generally unfair to the fighter and the category he comes from.

    Muhammad Ali was so great because he tapped into all three at different times. Sugar Ray Leonard even in his philosophy 3 rematch win vs Duran still had strong elements of 1 and 2 embedded. That is the reason why although he put on his running shoes, he deserves more credit than someone like a Floyd Mayweather for example.

    Philosophy 3 three in my opinion is a farce, they don't deserve the credit they think they're entitled to. They're not fighters. They fight LIKE cowards. A cowardly fighter is none other than one who doesn't really FIGHT. Remember, we viewed Alvarado as a coward for quitting the fighting element of the fight BECAUSE it became too much for him, hence Alvarado shifted to outpoint-to-win.
    Yeah, yeah, for stepping into the ring they're not cowards, ultimately. Sure, but we're not talking about that.

    Take a look at this farce:
    [YT]dz3a3XxsSDY[/YT]
    The reason why Mayweather didn’t lose a lopsided decision to Maidana in the first fight is precisely because of Maidana’s subscription to philosophy 2, with a tendency towards 1. If he simply decided to take a breather and focus on philosophy 3, he would have won the match very easily. That’s one major factor why category 3 boxers are so underwhelming and do not indicate mastery to me.

    Make no mistake, although Willie Pep was very defensively minded, he would fight on the inside, and often. He would also throw combinations that have been encrypted by his defence; Willie Pep’s approach to boxing is not customary of a category 3 fighter.

    What is the most elite level of defence?
    To me, it’s being as defensively responsible as you can whilst actually fighting. This is one of the reasons why Vasyl Lomachenko’s career is interesting to watch. He is a category 2 fighter, but his defence in the pros have had smaller tendencies of category 3 (because he perfected the art of hit and not being hit hence his 396-1 amateur record), but he’s improving this very aspect of his game evermore..the offence-defence is more seamless now and he’s not running reset:
    [YT]SBCNoGsiJ3w[/YT]


    One is truly great when they choose to outpoint by fighting. They say YES to this philosophy. Their defence is to be more celebrated because it’s harder to defend yourself when moving forward and fighting.
     
    Gannicus, Dec 23, 2015
    Gannicus, Dec 23, 2015
    #1
  2. itsa

    itsa Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,747
    48
    May 22, 2015
    Winners win and losers lose.
     
    itsa, Dec 23, 2015
    itsa, Dec 23, 2015
    #2
  3. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,573
    Jan 30, 2014
    Very interesting post but I disagree with a few things. I think that the real divide lies between Group 1 on the one hand and Groups 2 and 3 on the other. Guys in groups 2 and 3 are operating on a different plane in terms of skills and strategy. They have options that the tough guys, warriors, and kamikazes in Group 1 don't. Boxers in the Group 2/3 area change their approaches depending on the circumstances (their opponents, their relative strengths and weaknesses, the effects that their punches are having on their opponents, etc.). Groups 2 and 3 are really a continuum and the difference between them is really mostly just a judgment call. Along those lines, I also think that the term "runner" is an exaggerated misnomer. With the exception of Lara, I don't think that any of the guys in the third group really meet that description. If you actually watch Mayweather's fights, you'll see that most of his career probably falls within your "group 2" and several of the guys in your second group had fights where they clearly used group 3 strategies.
     
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    #3
  4. itsa

    itsa Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,747
    48
    May 22, 2015
    take two mice, have them race to the cheese. give one an advantage, will he use it everytime, or only sometimes? Also can we blame him for using the extra tool god (scientist) gave it?

    Theres a lot of :| in the op.

    Back in the day, nobody threw down their spears because the other guys still had rocks. You use what you have.


    I will say that Mayweather has shown plenty of times that he can fight far, mid, and inside very well and because of his proficiency in all styles thats why he wins because he has more tools.

    A guy like Manny may be able to fight, but he doesnt have all of the tools to win. Manny could never get on is toes and box to a decision if he had too, as shown by his losses to Marquez and Morales.
     
    itsa, Dec 23, 2015
    itsa, Dec 23, 2015
    #4
  5. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,309
    28,880
    Feb 25, 2015
    I agree. We need to change the rules because in recent years there has been a tendency to for some fighters to exploit the rules and fight like sissies.

    We must rid the sport of boxing of amateur style fighting. It's ridiculous to run away in the ring.

    When you watch Lara "fight", he's actually running away from his opponent.
     
    tinman, Dec 23, 2015
    tinman, Dec 23, 2015
    #5
  6. FreeRadricDavis

    FreeRadricDavis Guest

    Translation: IDKSAB
     
    FreeRadricDavis, Dec 23, 2015
    FreeRadricDavis, Dec 23, 2015
    #6
  7. scarecrow

    scarecrow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,880
    125
    Dec 13, 2015
    Buddy, if you would like you can go to your next local amateur tournament to watch amateur style fighting.

    For the rest of us real boxing fans we'll stick to a more professional style of boxing.
     
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    #7
  8. scarecrow

    scarecrow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,880
    125
    Dec 13, 2015

    Well Pacquiao follows philosophy #1. Fight to win.

    That's a very respectable professional style of boxing.
     
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    #8
  9. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,573
    Jan 30, 2014
    Agreed. :good
     
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    #9
  10. itsa

    itsa Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,747
    48
    May 22, 2015
    Sure, but its also historically a more limited style.
     
    itsa, Dec 23, 2015
    itsa, Dec 23, 2015
    #10
  11. scarecrow

    scarecrow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,880
    125
    Dec 13, 2015
    And style #3 is an amateur style.

    The OP was right. Fight to outpoint is the most fundamental and purest art of boxing.
     
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    #11
  12. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,573
    Jan 30, 2014
    How is it not just an extension of style 2?

    Aren't amateurs more concerned about landing as many punches as possible rather than avoiding them? Maybe your real gripe is that style #3 recognizes the fundamental fact that boxing is actually a sport and a craft, and not just fighting?
     
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    #12
  13. scarecrow

    scarecrow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,880
    125
    Dec 13, 2015
    Boxing is a combat sport. The foundation is fighting. Running is not fighting. Neither is hugging.
     
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    scarecrow, Dec 23, 2015
    #13
  14. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,573
    Jan 30, 2014
    A combat sport but it's still a sport, with its own rules and refined skills and techniques. And the core of fighting/combat is hitting/hurting people more than they hurt you.
     
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    mrkoolkevin, Dec 23, 2015
    #14
  15. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    255
    Feb 5, 2005
    I think you can answer this question somewhat differently by asking what is boxing.

    In some circles it means to hit and not get hit, power isn't really a consideration, unless it affects the outcome.

    Others would say boxing is actually a form of fighting, yes your objective is to win, but it's also to inflict damage to your opponent.

    Style one - focuses on the "boxing is a form of fighting" philosophy

    Style two - is a hybrid of the two and incorporates that fighting also includes
    defense and minimizing getting hit

    Style three - focuses on the hit and not get hit aspect of the sport, whereby
    your objective is to win while taking as little punishment as
    possible and if you can inflict damage you will, but it's not your
    fundamental objective.


    They are all valid, but the last one is decidedly the least entertaining of the three.
     
    Vanboxingfan, Dec 23, 2015
    Vanboxingfan, Dec 23, 2015
    #15
Page 1 of 4