Boxer vs Puncher Pickem Fights what does history say

Still can't believe Vernon Forrest lost that second fight man that was just terrible

 

Very simple. In boxing you have boxers,boxer punchers and punchers. Boxers beat punchers most of the time,boxer punchers have the advantage over boxers but can get in trouble against punchers because theyre sometimes willing to slug it out and forget to box.

 

He lost the first fight because he foolishly decided to stand and trade.

 

Ibeabuchi v. Byrd was puncher v. boxer. Froch v. Taylor too. Thompson v. Linares; Quintana v. Cotto. The puncher has got his pound of flesh in these matchups too.

 

How about boxer vs. boxer?

 

Yes, a fight where the "boxer" lost on the scorecards and neither fighter had any success unless they were head hunting and stalking the one trying to box.

great example.

 

How could you forget Maidana-Broner

 

:deal

/thread

 

True.

The problem for Kovalev is that his boxing skill is far inferior to that of Andre Ward. If the fight turns into a boxing match, Ward is gonna take Kovalev to SCHOOL..

 

NO.

Kovalev is NOT a very versatile fighter - he's basically a come forward boxer puncher - as many Eastern Europeans are.

 

Yep.

Never a good idea for the boxer to trade punches with a puncher. Forest learned that lesson the HARD way..

 

That second fight was razor close as hell .

The first fight is where He underestimated Mayorga definitely .

Forrest probably thought to himself while looking across the ring at Mayorga " What is this Nicarugan bum going to do against me ? "

3 rounds later , he found out the answer to that question .

 

Well lets just say if ward does a leonard vs duran 1, or leonard vs hearns 1 or 2, hes a dead man walking.

 

When the elite boxer faces the elite puncher the boxer does win more often than not. But in other cases this isn't always true.