Are counter punchers glorified among hardcore fans?

Currently pressure/volume fighters are glorified on the premise of "outworking" their opponant even if their aggression is completely ineffective.
If anything a CLEAN counter puncher is highly underrated.

Look at a Mayweather vs ODLH that fight was not really close but yet the judges scored Oscars flurries.
Its the same with Pac vs JMM3 .... Pac is completely ineffective for 2.40 of a round, then does a dumb flurry that mostly misses and he fools a chunk of the more simple minded fans.
So even though it was a clear as day JMM win due to a few simpletons Arum is gonna get away with fixing the fight.

If anything volume punchers currently are the most glorified.
We need to go back to where fans and judges score fights according to the rules.
Clean Punching, Effective aggression, Ring Generalship and Defense.
Right now volume punchers are gifted decisions based on nothing thats in the rules.

 

the top 10 p4p are either phenomenal counter punchers or have a large degree of counter-punching abilities in them...

Most of them are considered "hybrids" of some sort.

Where this is going is where you went in a smaller direction. There's no classic cut, 1-dimensional fighter thats going to be able to reign supreme. You cant be just a "boxer", "puncher", "brawler". Or just "pressure fighter", "dancer", or "counter-puncher". To be confined to one classification is to limit yourself, and also lets your opponents know your weakness.

Those who can "adjust" their supposed style to the opponent's weaknesses will be the successful fighter. Using Ward is a fine example. He says he HAS no style. That means he's open and unlimited to using anything and everything, and he does. What he does is diversified and versatile to whatever his opponent brings.

Take a look at Abraham vs Froch. According to their set styles, i think most predicted AA to cream Froch's clock, i sure did. All of a sudden, Froch showed boxing flexibility no one saw coming and totally outclassed & outpunched Abraham to probably his most humiliating loss, versus Ward & Dirrell.

To be confined to one style is to be confined to one gameplan. Marquez hadnt learned that. Pacquiao had re-defined his gameplan by becoming more of a counter-puncher himself, basically countering Marquez' counter-assaults he plays off of Pac's offense. Thats why #3 was so much slower, and much more like a chess match. Pacquiao also garnished his best decision vs Marquez yet...

 

Yet he did better in the first two fights, pac did much better in beastmode vs marquez rather than trying to box him.
I dont think many people will feel he did better in the last one than the other two to be honest.

 

seems to be a most debateable fight on ESB...
they'll be forever each other's equal

 

Vast majority of this board and the general public and experts/boxers alike thought this was the easiest fight to score and a clear decisive JMM win.

Pac going into more of a boxer mode just means hes crippling himself on what makes him great... thats his whirlwind type of aggression.
Now that hes trying to box, it comes down to him actually being a far inferior boxer to a Marquez or a Mayweather.

Pac has only very recently started learning to box and hes trying to do it vs people that were trained boxers since a very early age.
So obviously hes going to comeup very short.

Instead of trying to box he should have worked on his offensive strengths as he did previously (adding a effective right hand which he has) and maybe tightenup his defense so hes not so easy to hit or counter.

Learning to box for him is too late and its taking away from what makes him effective.

Its much like Hatton learning to box, it just put him in a limbo of styles and made him ineffective in both ways.

 

Excellent Post:good

 

Williams vs Lara is another great example of a pressure/volume puncher vs a counter puncher.... and guess who the clear winner was and who got robbed?

The counter puncher yet again, fact is its easier to gift a volume puncher a decision because they work so much it actually makes them seem somewhat effective to the untrained/casual eye.

Where people that have a clue about boxing see the punches missing or being blocked.

 

counter-punchers are sentimental favorites for most hardcore boxing fans. for the pacquiao-marquez fight, jmm's mistake was to fight on a purely defensive and safe mode for almost the entire fight. whereas he is more offensive in the 2nd and 1st fight. judges tend to score those close rounds to the aggressor/active fighter who is risking more than the fighter who is just waiting for the other to make some mistake.

 

This is a damned good thread. Good responses from all so far. It does certainly seem that judges like the agressive, active fighter while hardcore fans seem to like the more refined skill of counter punching.

 

Tell me something who did you think won between Lara vs Williams?
Just trying to see if you are unable to score boxing or you just conveniently forget how to when it comes to a Pac fight.

Also risking anything should not be rewarded if it did not result in anything.
Risking getting counterd while missing yourself should not be awarded points.

Add to that you clearly have no understanding on how a counter puncher operates, they do not waite for a mistake ... a mistake is just a bonus.
ANYTIME a fighter throws a punch they leave themselves open to a specific counter, and thats what the counter puncher thrives on.

Educate yourself on the sport already, theres more to boxing than throwing 100 punches per round.

 

I do think that offensive fighters are too often seen as nothing but limited skilled brawlers, e.g pacman

 

i haven't seen the fight so i can't comment on that. but i'll tell you what, i have seen the calzaghe-bhop fight and the penalosa-ponce deleon fight. and in both cases i have the more active fighter winning against the counter-puncher. who do you have winning on those fights?

pacquiao-marquez3 can be compare to a lesser extent but pacquiao did land and outworked marquez in most of the early and late rounds. marquez best work was in rounds 5-7 (middle rounds). he took off the gas in the last couple of rounds believing in nacho that he is winning the fight which is a big mistake.

and that's what i am talking about. they wait for the opponents to make a mistake, leaving themselves open, when they initiate an attack.

 

What about sturm vs macklin? its not always the volume puncher who gets the nod.

 

Judges don't prefer the pressure fighter, they prefer the house fighter. Froch's promoter promoted the Dirrell fight and Pacquaio's promoter promoted their fight. Pacquaio isn't a pressure fighter in a technical sense and he arguably wasn't even the aggressor.

But yes some judges do score for ineffective aggression, which means they can't discriminate if punches are landing or not