"Finishing skills": mostly a myth?

Remember, kids: if something doesn't fit your narrow individual scope of comprehension, it must not actually exist!

 

Of course it is, this thread does my head in.

There are guys that can whack but if they get someone hurt they either rush in all wild & sloppy and can't take advantage, or guys that in that situation just freeze up and remain overly cautious and similarly fail to capitalize (albeit for the opposite reason).

You don't even have to be an enormous puncher to be classed a great finisher.

 

Not just punching power. Think about cuts and swelling & that will show you how finishers operate. They get guys out of there quick and exploit things immediately. Guys like Ali and Leonard didn't knock guys off their feet, but they sure knew how to get the ref to wave off the bout.

 

Marciano's style was based on breaking a fighter down incrementally over the course of a fight, and this generally resulted in a stoppage eventually.

Dempsey's style was based on getting the other fighter on the canvas for ten seconds, in the shortest time frame practical, and thereby not permitting him to implement any sort of plan of his own.

Louis's style was based upon waiting for his opponent to make a mistake, or forcing them to make one, and using that mistake to end the fight then and there.

All of these fighters were good at stopping their opponent, but two of them better fit the description of "finishers."

 

Finishing is definitely a discrete skill it itself, albeit one which depends quite heavily on other attributes.

Broadly I'd define it as the ability to capitalise on a momentarily hurt or stunned opponent to force a stoppage. It's a skill which depends on quick and accurate reading of an opponent's physical or mental state, an understanding of openings, and the type of mindset that can switch to a determined yet methodical mode of attack when required of it.

To a degree it's kind of inversely proportional to punching power, since the more you can initially hurt an opponent with your punches the less you'll need to do to force the stoppage, which is why it's a little hard to evaluate in and of itself. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

To take a couple of examples, Ali was a master finisher, someone who'd instantly jump on an opportunity to take out a stunned opponent with crisp, accurate and lightning fast combinations. You can see the switch in his facial expression alone, from relaxed and laid back boxer to vicious, snarling killer in less than a second. Watch how quickly and efficiently he takes out Williams and Foreman for a great example of what I mean.

Marquez was also a great finisher without being a particularly hard puncher. The way he'd finish opponents he was able to stun was exceptional: crisp, accurate combinations from multiple angles that'd often leave iron-chinned opponents flat on the canvas. Diaz and Katsidis are cases in point. The way he opens up both men's guard and doesn't give them an opportunity to weather the storm or prepare for the shots through brute toughness and determination alone (something which both men possessed in abundance) is nothing short of sublime.

Tszyu is a superb example of a methodical finisher with massive power, a man with an innate understanding of distance, timing and angles. He would never smother his shots, or waste punches by attacking with predictable rhythms or angles of attack, nor would he recklessly attack in order to force a stoppage. Everything was precision and efficiency, a relentless wave of attack built up in careful stages from an initial gameplan that was put into play from the very start of the fight. Golovkin is a similar fighter today, an enormous puncher who never fails to ignore the importance of method and technique.

On the flip side, Haye was an example of a huge puncher with terrible finishing skills, someone who'd lose his mind trying to force a stoppage at the least sign that the opponent was buzzed. In many cases he was successful, due to the often poor quality of opposition he took on, and the power and speed with which he hit, but it bit him in the ass more than once.

 

Yes, that's a good way to look at it. My definition of when finishing ability comes into play differs slightly from yours, but I can get with your opinion.

 

Exactly. Some got the first criteria, but (have) lost the second. Like Waldo vs Joshua, not crowning Wlads career with a big win in the end.

 

I personally consider "finishing skills" as being one of the facets which the critics love to term, "ring IQ."
So, one can only have good finishing skills if one has got his opponent (not just any opponent... A GOOD opponent) into that position.
So, for example, finishing skills includes the following intelligence:
-I am making an informed judgment on how much gas I have left in my tank. Don't want to punch myself out. How's my power at this stage?
-I am making the same assessment on what my foe has left. How's his resistance at this stage? Can he recover if I falter this time? Are we (in certain bouts) near the close of the round?
But let's not forget this difference from ring IQ: It's a fight! And I'm an animal! I'm gonna get rid of this bad boy now now now! Natural instinct.