Successful plodders in boxing or good fighters with poor footwork

Pryor wasn't a plodder by any means, but technically his footwork was atrocious. Worked out pretty well for him.

 

Riddick Bowe. Very plodding, walking forward in straight lines type of fighting, especially towards the end of his career.

 

Not sure I'd call Rocky a fighter with poor footwork. Not sure if this is the inference in the OP, but agressive fighters can have good footwork too. You need your feed to move forward, after all.

 

I started doing a listing of champs and notable contenders for each weight and got to Welter before realizing it was already pretty massive.

In the end having average or below average footspeed(relative to your weightclass obviously) but solid or good footwork...or...technically dodgy but effective footwork and average or slow footspeed just isn't really a major deal breaker on being a successful world class fighter as long as the traits are integrated with other stronger tools and a style that makes sense for the fighter.

Especially the heavies where it's much worse to be really lacking in durability or power.I had about 30 odd fighters i felt fight the criteria.Maybe the best and most notable would be the rock.Not technical, and slow on his feet by any sensible definition of the word,but still very effective.

 

There aren't many that I can think of, really; at least not at the top level. The term 'plodding' usually gets misapplied in a lazy way to the likes of Louis, Arguello, Tiger etc. They could occasionally get turned or be forced to reset by constant, nonstop and/or often negative movement coupled with a low powerpunch output (Fernandez, Pastor, Archer etc), but I've never thought of it as a notable hinderance or weakness considering how they perfected their styles around it, at least no more than the weaknesses of essentially every great fighter I've seen.

I'd say they all clearly had better offensive footwork or punched better in conjunction with moving their feet or trying to open up someones defence better than, say, Toney, Marquez, Eubank or Rodrigo Valdez.

I'll might weigh in with a bit more later on but have to dash at the minute....

 

I suppose it depends what works for you. As some will know, my old fella was a world class bantam. He always said slow feet and fast hands. That's not to say he was a plodder, more like methodical. He just didn't like to waste energy bouncing around. If he had an opponent in front of dancing around he'd say let them, they had to get into range at some point to throw shots and that's when he got them.
Funny enough there is some film of him as an amateur representing GB against America which GB won 10-0. When he watched he used to say, state of my footwork there the way I'm bouncing around. His approach as a pro was completely different.

 

Footwork and balance is everything. I cannot think of a fighter that was a consistant stumble-bum who was great. They all had good footwork.

If pressed for an answer I would agreee with the post who said Pryor...him and maybe Pacquaio too. Pacquaio sometimes got a little leg-tied when on the hunt. But at his best he was great at pivoting and steppin to the side.

 

I'm not so sure Tin.I think Louis, Arguello, Tiger all fit into the kind of thing the TS is getting at, they just all had plenty of other stronger traits to stop it from being much of a hindrance.....but a hindrance it still was in comparison to how proficient they were in many other respects.

I'd have\had all of those fighters in my projected lists of fighters that fit the original options in varying degrees and approaches.

Except Eubank because his feet were fast, so he's in a different category, but certainly he was almost uncommonly bad at leading a fight.something that went beyond any mere technical flaws.

Arguello, Louis could certainly lead and stalk proficiently and did not have poor technical footwork, they were fundamentally sound most of the time but it doesn't stop them from being slow of foot and plodding.If both could close the gap like Duran, Dempsey or Chang or apply the advanced technique and integration of upper\lower body of Napoles or Gomez to avoid needing to be overly set to deliver with power they certainly would have done so when appropriate.It's skills they simply never had.

As an aside it's worth mentioning that plenty of fighters that could be mentioned here weren't constant in their level of proficiency at these things.Arguello had his nights where he did quite a good job of keeping a good pace and not being too plodding(Castillo, Marcel...even Olivares etc) other times he fought as if he had weights tied to his ankles

even Toney had his good nights.I find the fighters with sound-if basic- technique who just happen to be quite slow of foot will be inconsistent against fighters who force them to do a lot of moving rather than outright bad.

Obviously someone with genuinely inept innefective footwork and cement feet are unlikely to ever get to the top of the sport, but there are plenty who are no more than average relative to their weightclass in these footspeed\footwork areas that can have good careers.

 

Galindez is one that I would mention.....he wasn´t always a "plodder" though.

 

Salvador Sanchez

 

Yeah, strictly a counterpuncher...he wanted to ultimately lure his opponent to come to him while his back was against the ropes.

 

YES. Bowe had NO footwork. He just followed ya, feet planted, winging shots.

It worked for him, though, because he was big, long, strong, fast, and relatively skilled with his hands. Great jab. But when a guy like Holyfield, who is awkward and predictable on his toes, got up there, Bowe was frequently lost. Had no idea how to cut Golota off, and Golota wasn't even moving much, just sliding off to the side and firing.