Fella, You need to follow another sport seriously. Foreman fought top ten ranked Peralta in his 16th fight! After making this ridiculous statement. "Prime williams couldn’t beat Satterfield...a 50s journeyman." Its abundantly clear you do not have a single clue WTF you are talking about! And I'm left regretting all the time I've wasted responding to you!
You are arguing against points i never made. I never said style a always beats style b. Literally no one with an ounce of boxing knowledge believes that. And obviously no is going to win just by using a style on autopilot turning your brain off without putting in the work and practicing.
Let’s cut to the chase here. white supremicists ruined Rocky for the rest of us. *Slips and weaves ban hammer*
But you made this statement: when and why and by what means did the counter pressure puncher style of Rocky have the advantage boxing-wise if Walcott was ahead until the final punch that ended the fight? Stylistically, the more advanced and experienced Walcott was having the more round by round success. But in doing so Rocky was able to continue to fight hard and eventually score with a punch that could win him the fight. Don’t you think His perseverance rather than “style” had kept him in the fight until the final blow? Then why would you say “Marciano had a stylistic advantage over Walcott” if you didn’t think Marciano had a stylistic advantage over Walcott? but if you say style itself can be the advantage something not far from this is the implication. Style advantage is just a new internet generalisation kind of thing that gets thrown around. It is not a real thing.
As this article from the Miami Daily News describes, Williams had been out of the gym since knocking out Sylvester Jones and didn't resume sparring until two days before the fight. https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=MkRCSU1TY1dfWFJSMWhVRUc4dTBWNWN5dzF2SXBB
Thanks that is a brilliant article which sheds a lot of light onto the situation. Reading it through, as I had previously assumed, Williams was being very carefully groomed as a potential champion and although an underdog, was still given an excellent chance if winning this fight with Satterfeild. Williams had won a key fight just two weeks earlier. Here it is documented that Williams had indeed kept fit since with “plenty of runs” since the last fight and was “in peak physical shape”. Ideally Williams would need more sparring, but If a fighter planned to fight two weeks after the previous one he probably wouldn’t need to do so much sparring so close between fights. With a two week interval, He would not be sparring for a week after the last fight and wouldn’t be sparring within 4 days of the next fight anyway. Lots of fighters claim to have won fights without any sparring or as little sparring as this. But this confirmation of Williams keeping fit between fights of a two week interval is shows little of anything detriment went on here.
An iron chinned swarmer with tons of stamina already has an advantage over a guy who sticks and moves. The outside fighter has to move 2-3 steps just to maintain his preferred range and set up his counters and shifty footwork. Thats very tiring and taxing. Its as you said: Walcott immense 23 years of experience allowed him to fight a perfect fight against what would normally be an extremely difficult matchup. Rocky realized he was not winning the decision and proceeded to break him down for the eventual highlight reel ko. The reason Rocky got outboxed so many rounds was the enormous difference in experience and rocky's lack of defense and wild swarming pressure. A more refined swarmer would be someone like Julio cesar chavez or more recently, shawn porter. Rocky often made things harder on himself by being overly aggressive but got away with it due to his incredible stamina and toughness. Cant really criticize an undefeated fighter but very few others could be successful with his style that was so taxing on the body. It was a case of "successful but at what cost?" Not very practical. . Anyway to answer your question it was the both rocky's swarming style and his grit that gave him inherent advantages over an aging fighter like walcott who liked to box at mid and long range and time his opponents. Rocky was younger and threw more often which, even if he missed or had punches blocked, forced Walcott to either engage or remain elusive every minute of every round, taking him outside of his comfort zone. Walcott not being the most durable fighter made things worse too, despite his ring IQ and experience. I DO think marciano had a stylistic advantage over Walcott. Im not retracting anything. What im saying is of course i dont believe style A "ALWAYS" beats style B. No one actually thinks that. Normally a swarmer can give a mover hell but a mover isn't completely without options or helpless and there are plenty of examples of a mover overcoming the style disadvantage and winning. There is no contradiction here. I have already clarified this 3x now. Let me use one last analogy and then im done because this is trying my patience. Let's you have 2 American football teams (team A and team B) and they have 2 different styles: team A likes to run the ball and throw long flashy passes to their receivers. They have very fast players but weak defense. Team B's offense is garbage but the linebacker and cornerbacks are beasts and the defensive line is tough. Unless there is a huge gap in skill or experience, normally when teams like this face off team B is more likely to win. Even though to win a football game requires that you have more points (which requires offense), team B has an inherent advantage: their defense can effectively nullify the best tools of team A. So back to boxing. The point isn't that anyone who uses swarming will always beat a mover. Its that the strategy of non stop pressure and volume inherently gives a mover headaches, as long as there isnt a huge gap in skill and experience. Similarly, defensive team B's wont always beat offensive team A's, but a coach who knows he has good defensive players will rejoice if he is going up against a super offense oriented team that lacks defense. All it freaking means is that the style of swarming has more pros than cons when going up against the style moving. Thats it. If both guys are of similar skill and experience and you've got a determined tough swarmer with good cardio, it would be unwise to bet against him in that matchup even if you hadn't seen either boxer fight before. At least that's my opinion anyway. I've been watching boxing for over 15 years and i have studied it, practiced it, and written about it. I order ppvs and invite people over every month and watch both old school and modern fights in my spare time. You may have seen way more boxing than i have but i would appreciate it if youd stop acting like im some uninformed casual who just got into the sport and my ideas are crazy or not based on fact. Maybe you're right and im way off and blowing smoke out my ass. It's not like there are famous trainers, boxers, analysts, or posters on this site who agree with me or anything. That'd be crazy.
An iron chinned Swarmer CAN have the advantage. Sometimes the stick and mover CAN have the advantage. But you know this already. It depends on multiple factors even with all things being equal. Like the old saying goes “let the BEST man win”. Well the BEST man can be a swarmer or a stick and mover. I personally don’t think Walcott was a stick and mover, or was even forced to become a stick and mover in his fight with Marciano. My takeaway from viewing it multiple times is that Walcott fought very aggressively, set out to always beat Rocky to the punch...lead with the exchanges to open Rocky up then walk him onto counters. Walcott fought Rockys fight in many ways, he even bought time, you are correct. One of the successful implementations of a swarming style is indeed to make the outside fighter work like crazy. Walcott was famously taking the initiative to Rocky though. Both fighters were getting hit, Walcott was working like a demon. He was trying to take Ricky out. He wasn’t looking to rack up a points lead. He thought Rocky was beneath him, he was determined to teach him a lesson. and with certain pairings you would be correct, but not always. I think you are a good poster with a good grasp on things. I just encourage you to avoid the term “style advantage” because, in my humble opinion, it isn’t helpful and can be unnecessarily misleading.
You seem to be the only one getting confused. No one, including myself, believes one style always beats another style. Only that some styles usually have an advantage over others, which is true. I can't make it any more simple. You are bickering over semantics and words. And I stopped caring when I noticed you provided no evidence or rebuttal at all.