Are counter punchers glorified among hardcore fans?

Counter-punchers are seen as more skilled fighters and so are highly regarded.

However, offensive fighters do command the higher purse in boxing history.

General population does not equate offensive skills as a skill that is also at par with defensive skills, which is erroneous. Conuterpunchers are adept with application off good defense, and the offense is a reactionary type, defending on how the opponent does or throws.

 

yep:good

 

Matter of fact, Daruf, after readin' the thread all I can say is....dealdeal

 

i like pressure fighters like rios. he just shows u who is the winner. guys like marquez fight on the back foot and r too defensive. the name of the game is landing punches not how much u avoid them.

 

Mayweather
Hopkins
Ward

They're not just counter-punchers. They happen to also have more varied and versatile skill sets. truboxingfans should be proud of boxers the more complete they are.

 

Name of the game is hitting and not getting hit, someone with the name of Boxing Fanatic should know better.
Marquez implemented this perfectly.

But i guess just storming forward getting hit in the face is being the winner.
Katsidis was beating Marquez too at the time of the stoppage?
Also DEFENSE is a scoring criteria, so actually yes how much you avoid them IS part of BOXING.

 

Appreciate the vote of confidence

 

I like clear effective punching and countering when i judge but if the counter puncher is so out worked or so inactive they cant win rounds

Marquez countered Pac but threw a lot and landed a lot and i had that fight for JMM

Hopkins vs Calzaghe i went agaisnt the coutner puncher because Hopkins did nothing he was so inactive never threw and got out worked flat out, i hate giving a guy a fight on activity but Hopkins did zero

Gave Froch the decision of Dirrel, Dirrel through the fight away looekd at the ref rather than fight he held a lot and when he held Froch punched Dirrel didnt, he let himself get out worked and mauled despite being superiror in many ways and hurting him real late in the fight, if Dirrel fought that way the whole fight he woulda won

a good counter puncher or a clean effective guy who is out worked can beat a busier guy if his shots are so much better and so much crisper

examples Chavez Jr over Zbik and Lara deserved it over Williams despite being out worked

 

Its all about landing clean, hard, and effective for me. It does'nt matter if its by leading or on the counter.


Land clean, hard and effective and do it consistently round after round.

Some of the examples in this thread like Hopkins did'nt meet that criteria against Calzaghe.


A reality check for those that want to parrellel Marquez-Pac to Hopkins-Calzaghe.
Hopkins did not consistently use Calzaghe's activity and aggression against him.

The monumental difference between Marquez and Hopkins is that Marquez seeks and invites his opponent to attack and seeks the counter opportunity in virtually every instance his opponent is punching at him.

Hopkins on the other hand smothers, clinches, and uses illegal tactics to stall the proceedings and flow of a fight.
Hopkins' workrate in the fights he lost to Jermaine Taylor and Joe Calzaghe was **** poor to say the least.

......this was not the case with Marquez' fights with Pacquiao which Marquez activity level was on Par or above.

There is'nt a fight Hopkins has lost where he had a consistent workrate of output and connects, when he did'nt, he lost those fights.

A consistent activity of output and connects round by round was never a problem with Marquez in his trilogy with Paquiao. Therefore my point is that there are fighters like Hopkins that do lose fights because they dont fight.
Marquez' situation in his losses to Pacquiao has nothing to do about not fighting and everything to do with the corruption that exist in the sport.

 

To me, the real problem is that pressure fighters don't get enough credit for what they do from hardcore fans. It isn't unusual to see good pressure fighters being labelled as having "no skill" just because they aren't the kind of flashy, dancing type fighters that hardcore fans see as skillful fighters. I've even seen fighters like Chavez Snr being dismissed in terms of skill because he was "just a pressure fighter". Good pressure fighters should be as highly regarded like equally good fighters of any other style are.

 

If it is so easy to do, then there should be more of them.

A requirement is that you must have a more than respectable power whereas those that are counterpunches don't have to have one.

I believe that the kind of boxer you become is molded by your physical limitation Most of the time. There are however aberration like for example Juan Diaz who tends to be a swarmer despite having a very weak punch. He would be better of being like malignaggi.

 

Calzaghe used to have good power but he was plagued by hand issues. Ditto with gayweather.

 

Hardcore fans appreciate every style its more the casual fans that just want to see blood. Just like in any sport your going to have athletes relying on skill, size, etc.I don't buy judges swaying on the more aggressive fighter or else Hagler and Castillo would of won their controversial losses with you know who. Its incompetent or corrupt judging that's all it is. If counterpunching wasn't an effective method then why they continue to use it? Then all fighters would be pressure fighters, but that's not the case. Manny should take a lie detector test or make the judges take it see who they really won the fight.

 

i think the more accurate term is defensive fighter. All boxers are counter punchers to some degree. Counter punching is essential in boxing. Defensive fighters often sell themselves short by waiting too much and not doing enough to win the fight, look at Hopkins as a good example.