Fights where attritional pressure fighters beat technicians

Exactly.

As I alluded to in my first post on this thread, sometimes people equate outboxing another fighter with being more skilled or technically superior. But a lot of times, a guy will outbox another guy because he has physical gifts, not superior skill. I found Chavez and Taylor I to be one such example. Taylor was just so much faster and thus could regularly beat Chavez to the punch. Generally-speaking, there were a lot of great fighters throughout the years who were able to outbox technically superior fighters simply because they had superior physical gifts (e.g. Jones vs. Hopkins I that I already mentioned in the above post - and frankly every other Roy Jones fight - stretches of Leonard vs. Hearns I, Chan-hee Park vs. Canto I, and ad infinitum). But this is another topic altogether.

 

Forrest was an elite amateur for year's and beat the brakes off of Mosley who was a pound for pound number 1 fighter. The problem with Vernon was injuries really derailed his career. Also, he wasn't as good when he moved to 154. I wonder if the losses to Mayorga were because he could make 147 anymore and he was drained. I do know that he was never the same after shoulder surgery.

 

Yes, I know Forrest's amateur background and saw his bouts with Mosley live. But I don't know what to think of the Mosley results (partly because I am ambivalent about Mosley's worth). In the first fight, I thought it initially looked like Forrest was totally out-classed by Mosley's speed. And then the butt occurred and that seemed to turn the entire complexion of the fight. And the beating Mosley took as a result seemed to affect him in the second fight, where Mosley looked tentative and frankly even intimidated. I think Mosley was a front-runner a bit like Tyson. He could be spectacular at times but rather flat at others. It would have been a more solid measure of Forrest's worth if he fought either Trinidad or de la Hoya in their welterweight primes, I feel.

 

Hi Buddy.
At first glance you are right to question my pick, and I agree it looks out of synch, but I was assessing the encounter at the time of their fight, at that early stage in his illustrious career Duran was viewed as a somewhat reckless slugger, a pure KO artist, he was likened to the Graziano's of the trade, unlike the much later years, when he developed into the much more skillful, and technically gifted boxer he would eventually become, plus he was pitted against Buchanan who was rightly seen as a very profound and talented boxer, so the lead up in the press was more of the slugger v the boxer, so that was where I was coming from, I hope I have explained my pick so as to give you an insight into my reasons, it's the way I saw it then at that stage in Duran's development, some might agree, some might not.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.

 

Absolute toomfolery mate

 

Roberto Duran schooling Ray Leonard

 

Paul Ingle vs Colin McMillan is a good example of this.

 

Quite a few of Matthew Saad Muhammad's fights

 

Again, I'd argue that Duran was the more "skilled" fighter. I think people automatically assume the more aggressive fighter is less skilled, and, conversely, the boxer or boxer-puncher is the more skilled. But in terms of ring craft, I can't agree that Leonard, especially the Leonard of Montreal, was more savvy. Leonard could compete, because he was bigger and faster, not because he was more skilled.

 

Dundee noted that Duran was no savage—he was slick and clever, and he was trained by Arcel and Brown.

 

Tim Tszyu vs Tony Harrison

 

Matias vs Ergashev
Emanuel Naverrete vs Liam Wilson

 

Thanks for the civil response - especially given that, upon re-reading, my post may have come off as needlessly aggressive or provocative. I see your point, and it may even be that at that stage Duran may have been the less skilled fighter. Perhaps my tone was brought about by my frustration with the tendency by many fans to equate aggressive style with lack of skill, and more defensive style with superior skill. It's one my major boxing pet peeves.

 

Exactly.

 

Hi Buddy.
I took no exception to your post or your tone, and it was certainly not aggressive or provocative, as evidenced by your response, you are a polite and well mannered poster, would that there were more posters of a reflective nature like your good self, and I totally get your " pet peeve " as I said, not sure all will agree with my assertions, but that's the joy of the forum, friendly debate and polite discussion, glad we have had our chat, and look forward to many more.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.