Several HWs in the past have been called "oafs," due to their styles, and their apparent lack of coordination. Can fighters be "oafs" and still be considered good, or even great?
Yes. My personal oaf, Baer, was clearly good in spite of his god-awful technique. Primo Carnera is another that doesn't exactly set the world on fire in the skills department and he was good. Valuev, another. But all these guys had a massive physical advantage to make up for their shortcomings.
Not if there are other factors that make up for it. Vitali Klitschko isn't exactly the world's most polished-looking fighter, but my god, was he effective.
Reznick asked "good". I'd say they were good. Baer is probably one of the top 3 HW fighters of his era so you could make the argument he was great, although I would hesitate.
guys like Primo werent oafs, he just got that tag because he was the oddman out due to his size, made him look big and clumsy and slow compared to the normal guy. I've had an oaf of this thread, gotta be said.
Neither one of them are oafs. Fury is an excellent outboxer who can punch whike moving and counter in his toes. He does a little too much pawing at times and carries a little too much weight, but i wouldnt call him oafish at all. As for wilder, theres a difference between punching recklessly when youre opponent is hurt and just being clumsy in general. If wilder was such an oaf he wouldnt have such amazing accuracy or good lateral movement. He also has underrated defense and head movement. I mean the guys never been down and few have made him pay. If his opponent is dangerous and isnt hurt hes actually very cautious.
Of course, welcome back to the forum btw. Not sure why you were banned in the first place, people like me get banned...not you. Imo terms like oaf are all in the context of the elite level of the sport. Nobody, such as Primo Carnera or Jess Willard (commonly labeled oafs), could win the heavyweight title without being good or very good. It's just not possible. That's why no guy who fights a lot on the street not professionally ever came close to winning the heavyweight title.
Being effective is what counts. Plenty of fancy boxers lose fights too. Everyone is great when they are winning. An effective Oaf can beat the best technical fighter in the world even though an effective technical fighter can also beat the pants off an “ineffective” lumbering Oaf. They key word is “effective”. Tyson Fury is not a great “out boxer”. He is an effective Oaf. And that’s good. Sure he can employ “long tactics”. It dosnt make him a great technical fighter. Especially when he’s leaning and grabbing and smothering a fighter and relying on enormous physical size advantages. The “long tactics” of the Superheavyweight is different from long tactics in any other weight class. If Fury was boxing circles around fighters his own size without using the clinch you could say he was a good out fighter. Larry Holmes was a great out fighter. Ali was a great out fighter. Tyson Fury? Effective Oaf.
Have you watched his entire career? Technically speaking he was looked at as a joke, until the Klitschko fight. He was known as a big man with power and heart.
Wlad was not an oaf by any means, but he did look a little oafish against Fury for some reason. I guess tall guys brought out the oaf in him or something. Of course Fury did not look much better. That fight was very oafish
I can find instances of ali, tyson, and several other fighters looking clumsy and silly early in their career. Its called getting better. When people dismiss guys like valuev as oafs its because literally their whole career they remained plodding stumbling buffoons who lacked basic ring iq. They might improve on one or two areas by a slight margin but generally speaking there isnt a huge difference. Vitali for example was a very straightforward basic 1-2 puncher and brawler before stewart began educating him. Foremans first and second careers are like night and day technique wise.