I think you’re right on with the last point. Trying to get Mike Tyson to fight like Willie Pep wouldn’t work. Trying to get Thomas Hearns to fight like Mike Tyson wouldn’t work. Body type (reach included), attributes like speed and power and — this from my experience as a trainer of amateurs and some pros, is the one that is hardest to put your finger on and figure out — the boxer’s disposition all figure into it. Some guys are, for instance, aggressive by nature no matter what you do; telling them to hold back is like telling a pit bull to be a poodle. Some are more reactive and thus disposed to be counter-punchers and are not comfortable when leading. Etc. (I’m probably overstating, but Jimmy Ellis is a guy who the more I watch I see him more as a fighter and a boxer; people tend to think of him as a stick-and-move guy but he’s got some innate will to mix it up and I think Dundee managed to find some perfect balance where Jimmy was fighting against his nature and blending both to get the most out of his abilities.) It’s an interesting topic and I understand the objection to my earlier answer of saying I’d rather have speed (which I chose because I think it’s an attribute that lends itself to myriad styles and also confounds a lot of opponents even of greeater overall ability) and I appreciate you course-correcting me back toward the topic so we can have a meaningful discussion.
Real counterpunchers who have a good defence and chin. Rarely catching them all night as they pot shot you and when you finally do they don't even grunt they just shell up and keep moving like usual. Kind of sounds like Toney?
I have to agree with that, especially on a personal level. I trained to box in a gym in New Jersey. At the time ex Light Heavyweight Contender Richie Kates was my trainer. I was the only woman in the gym. Although I never actually had a fight (I never intended to and partly because that was a condition of Richie training me at all) I did participate in Gym Wars with the guys. I was developing an out boxer style and the two hard swarmer types we had in the gym were very hard to handle. I would much rather fight another boxer or a slugger than those two guys. They really kept me busy in the ring. {{{GASP!}}}
I guess the best answer for me within the constraints of the question is: Southpaw. They give most people fits. Hard to look good against even if you beat them. If you’re right-handed and fight southpaw, you’re going to have a monster jab so it works that way too. Now if I’m making a business decision, it’s harder to get fights as a southpaw because people avoid them in general so it’s harder to move up the ranks. But as far as what style gives more fighters problems regardless of the style of opponent, I’d say a lefty.
About lefties, they reach their plateau and peak sooner than orthodox fighters on average due to their inherent stylistic advantage. But they also tend to hit a ceiling sooner. Kind of like a popular kid in high school who peaks at 18 and becomes a loser while others are late bloomers enjoying success later on. From what I've seen in both the amateurs and pros, southpaws reach a certain point early and then don't make many drastic improvements or adjustments in their styles. Guys like Pacquiao, Whitaker, and Hagler, who had very long and great careers with many defenses are rare. Southpaws aren't always successful in the long run at the elite level and may fizzle out after creating waves or have a bit of a yo yo career. But I do agree that in general, southpaws are a pain in the ass for just about any style.
Guys like Pacquiao, Whitaker and Hagler are rare. So are guys like SRL, SRR and Roy Jones Jr. I don’t know that southpaws fizzle at any higher rate than orthodox fighters. There’s absolutely not one style of boxer that inherently is more likely to be successful just based on style than any other. So that wasn’t what I was trying to address. But if I had to name a style that has an advantage more than other styles, I’ll go with southpaw. (To repeat what I posted earlier, boxer-puncher isn’t a style — you cannot stylistically make yourself a big puncher; likewise, counter-puncher with a great chin isn’t a style, because having a great chin isn’t a style; if I get to say ‘super-fast, impossible-to-hit, murderous-punching, iron-chinned, iron-willed, superbly-conditioned’ is the style I think is the best, well those are attributes, not styles.)
Well no, of course you can't actually make yourself hit 2x harder than you did before even with peds. Boxer puncher, from what I understand, is a traditional straight forward boxer who fights more aggressively on the front foot and throws more power punches. The name does not suggest that you can just decide to become a more powerful puncher. Someone like a Liston, Louis, Golovkin, Kovalev, etc. Their jabs aren't just range fighters they also try to hurt you and set up powerful combinations. They have good fundamentals and a wide variety of punches. They combine traits of a slugger with a boxer and fight at a more measured pace rather than just swinging for the fences or being content to box their way to a decision. They have a balance between the two extremes.
This!!!! From personal experience, it was always difficult to win a three round fight in the amateurs against a human windmill. Sometimes it just doesn't matter who is the more skilled guy. I saw plenty of great boxers lose fights to awkward volume punchers.
Than we got the swarmers like Armstrong or Marciano that seems to never tired out. Forget the first 3 rounds, they are going to give you hell for the whole 12 or 15 rounds.
I tend to agree here, add to it the swarmer has some good or even great defense like a Duran you're in deep ****.
This content is protected Break down on Armstrong's style. I have always consider Henry the greatest swarmer that ever lived. Even over the likes of Marciano and Frazier. This guy was hell to fight.
Yeah, my answer is a genuine boxer-puncher. The only caveat being that, as Sean O'Grady once said, most guys who call themselves boxer-punchers can't do either.
The boxer like a Sumbu Kalambay who can move on his feet and counter, or a Michael Nunn. Movement.. Speed.
A boxer counterpuncher would be difficult to fight, because every time you miss, your opponent tags you with his counters. He would have to possess an iron jaw.
