More effective - Gameplan or Adjustments?

adjustments.

 

Adapt or die.

 

:good

 

Great question. I think a fighter who can adjust is the mark of a truly special fighter...like Floyd Mayweather Jr. Mayweather adjusted to Hatton, Judah, and De La Hoya. Not all fighters have the ability to adjust in the midst of a fight. It is a rare trait. Another perfect example is how JMM adjusted to Pacquiao in the 1st fight, and how Tszu adjusted to what Judah.

A gameplan is just a gameplan. Just every fighter comes in with a gameplan - in fact, having a gameplan is a staple in ALL sports, not just boxing...the trick is to successfully execute that plan, like say, Hopkins did to Trinidad

As far as which is more effective, it's hard to say. Having a gameplan and being able to make adjustments are two different things. Some fighter rarely have to make adjustments, because whatever they are doing is already working. No need to fix what isn't broken, right?

The bottom line is, the question "which is more effective" can't really be answered...not by ME, anyway.

 

The fighter that adjust during the course of a fight the best is normally the winner because making good adjustments beats a good gameplan imo

 

I'd say overall its being able to make adjustments, that separate the true greats from the rest of the pack.

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"

-Mike Tyson

 

Don't under estamate a good game plan. However you have to be able to adapt to your opoent if your gameplan is not working.

 

It's very hard to distinguish between the two because they sort of go hand in hand. Adjustments is a little more talent and ring IQ dependent, not everybody can make many adjustments in the heat of battle, it requires a good mind for boxing and also the ability to make that change.

Anybody can have a gameplan for a particular foe. But really I think you have to prepare for a fight for all eventualities, there needs to be a Plan A, B and maybe even C and that is where the adjustments come in.

 

its fifty fifty. a good example is cal vs kess. cal knew he needed to b landing more due to kess power. cal ate some nasty uppercuts from kess. cal started to block the uppercuts.

 

hmm says . . .

neither is guaranteed a victory, but effectively ad******g is the better. You need to get a feel for your opponent first/ whether or not you have a great gameplan..plan A or B.. Hell ad******g is esssential, why the hell do you have trainers telling you what you need to improve/adjust in between rounds when clearly not all gameplans work 100%.

I believe it's a combination of both..

 

The current fighters who have the best adaptation skills are JMM and PBF, and they both overcame gameplans, examples:

Juan Diaz had a gameplan of taking JMM's legs out by overworking him, but the highoutput guy got overworked.

Casamayor was countering Jmm's with a right hook, and after the middle rounds jmm used head movement to stay away from that hook.

And well I think against pac is all said.

Same for PBF:

He started countering the jab in the middle rounds at the DLH fight
He surprised the pushing forward attitude of hatton with the "check hook"
He timed Judah's punches and started to get agressive to the body.

So I would say adjustments..

 

Depends on the situation, the fighters involved, how well crafted the gameplan is, (and how well it does in analyzing the abilities of both fighters) etc.

 

I do not think it is an either/or situation. Sometimes it is truly amazing to watch a fighter execute a particuarly audacious game plan, and impose his will on an opponent against the odds. Other times it's very impressive to watch a fighter adjust and change what he is doing when the game plan isn't working. It's just not an either/or situation.

 

I would say adjustments is better because what happens when your gameplan doesn't work? If you cannot adjust, then you're pretty much doomed. Having said that, watching Hopkins school Pavlik was a thing of beauty (gameplan)...