Sergio Martinez is the MAN at 154 and 160, and he's a strong finisher who often starts relatively slow.
Most of the time a strong finisher will win if he can just weather the storm in the early rounds Holifield-Tyson is a good ref
Against pavlik he was both, he started strong, faded a little bit in the mid rounds, and came back on top :good
Fighting is about how you finish, winning or losing, not how you start. A slow starter can be costly if taken advantage of, but being a strong finisher will help get the job done down the stretch when the opponent is not as fresh. If a good starter gasses or has his best moments early on, who knows what awaits. Fighters who coast tend to lose in the later rounds if they don't have anything left after expending so much early on.
If you're a boxer or a swarmer, then it's best to be a strong finisher. If you're a slugger, it's best to be a fast starter.
depends on the strengths of the fighter. good conditioning and the drive to fight a full fight don't hurt any fighter but **** that's easier said than done. things like the tempo of the fight and how hurt you are can change a fighter's ability to finish strong dramatically.
Wlell it's best to be both so you don't drop a ****ing decision in the end... but t also depends on long the fight goes. If the fight is a 4 rounder or goes to an early technical decision it's best to start quick isn't it?
Strong finisher. Ugly Boy Floyd is a good example. He uses the first 4-5 rounds to measure his opponent, figure them out, see what they've got and what kind of a gameplan they bring with them, and then he goes to work on them after that.
It depends really. counter puncher starts slow and is very vulnerable but after that can usally be dominating once they feel comfortable. A boxer has to have the same workrate contantly. If you look when marquez fought manny he was ropped 3 times in the first round but after that was owning manny with perfectly timed hooks and right hands. Thomas hearns would of beat floyd in 3 rounds