I've heard a number of pundits and boxers describe Eubank Jr as a good fighter but not a good boxer. Can someone please describe to me what the difference is? What attributes should we see to be classed as a good boxer and vice versa? Can someone still be successful as a fighter but not a quality boxer? Thanks in advance.
Boxer is more technical and wants to avoid getting hit at all costs. Relies on good foot work and counter punching Fighter is someone who doesn't mind taking shots and likes to win through less technical but more grit like deternination That's how I see it anyway
Thanks for that. So would good footwork be the ability to turn and get out of trouble and move to get into good angles to throw different shots?
Boxer ideally likes to hit without getting hit. This usually requires getting in and of range, good timing, correct footwork and body movement. Fighters tend to prefer a brawl, dragging the opponent into a fight which suits them. Going into toe to toe exchanges will result in getting caught with punches however they should land plenty as well. Fighters tend to be strong and aggressive with a higher punch output.
He's an absolutely fantastic boxer anyway. He has become a very ellusive fighter, his head movement is probably the best in British boxing ATM and his punch selection is world class.
boxers are in and out of the ranges, the shots they rely on most is the jab,cross and looping left hook fighters are always trying to get up close, they use short range hooks and uppercuts the most. This is just a generalisation but you should get the jist
i dont think his head movement is anywhere near as good as Framptons imo and i dont see him as particularly elusive, even Quinlan was catching him. i dont think someone who is as wild at times and who leaves himself as open as Jr does can be described as elusive
There is no way you are being serious.....................Obviously you are on here to take the p*ss.
Old School fighters stood in the pocket and traded shots, guys like James Toney could fight in a phone box and still be slipping shots and nailing the other guy with counters.
I always think this is the question that is defined by Lewis and wlad... Both simelar fighters. Tall, long fighters with excellent jabs and massive right-hand punches the ith power to boot. Both had less than stella chins by all accounts. But while Wlad developed an ultra-cautious style that resolved on jabbing and clinching and going to points if required and staying out of trouble i.e. boxing hit without being hit - Lewis still kept that "eye of the tiger" in most fights he the opportunity arose he got you out of there and when he had to in the likes of the Ray Mercer fight, or Shannon Briggs he straight up fought his way out of trouble he took big shots then came back with power of his own. Fighting standing and trading and showing the other guy who the king in the ring is.
not just this, the ability as people have said to be in and out or range, controlling the distance of the fight. Good footwork allows you to control balance so moving and setting for a shot become fluid.
I suppose you could argue that Wlad Klitschko was more of a boxer whereas Vitali Klitschko was more of a fighter, for example. Wlad had plenty of heart but fought more as a boxer who was cautious and didn't take risks unless he was absolutely sure it would go his way, whereas Vitali was definitely the much tougher fighter with the much better chin.