Are counter punchers glorified among hardcore fans?

Noone ever claimed this, and the whole analogy does not even hold up.
1 the punch output was nowhere near that far apart.
2 Marquez landed MORE clean punches not just a higher connect %.

Get with the program.

In fact Pac threw 578 vs 436 from Marquez, Pacs output was half of what he can throw and doing just 10 punches more per round you can really argue between the 2 who was landing the more significant shots? what a joke.

I know some of you are really stretching reality far far beyond the realm of whats possible but making a arguement that Pac threw 3x more punches is just beyond laugheble.

 

Dont expect a response by any of these *******s to your post.

Alot of us question HBO's punchstats to begin with, but even if you went by them, as you said the fighters activity level was comparable and it sure looked like Marquez was the busier fighter because he was actually putting mustard on his shots.
Marquez looked and achieved to land connects with power, while Pacquiao so out of rhythm and balance, so often just moved his hands without planting his feet and driving toward Marquez to throw with power.

The previous two fights though Pacquiao was getting thoroughly outboxed, he picked his spots to go for it and attempt to land with power.
In those fights even while he was getting thumped with counters, Pacquiao still found spots to drive toward Marquez with real leverage and power behind his shots. This act gave one the sense Pacquiao was in the fight and could change the tide with a single shot.
I was at the edge of my seat in those first two fights hoping Marquez would'nt get careless by throwing too many shots during his combinations.

This third fight Pacquiao was void of driving with force toward Marquez.
Never in the fight did one sense Marquez was or could be in any danger.
In fact during the championship rounds, Pacquiao never put the type of pressure on Marquez to force him to be uncomfortable and thus force mistakes.

Marquez fought at his pace, tempo, and rhythm throughout the whole fight. He controlled every facet of the game with the pace and rhythm of the fight.

 

Yep those fans are a joke, they try and act like they know more than everyone, they're just elitist clowns.

 

JMM didn't come forward once against Pac and that has to count for something in a negative manner. If Pac didn't come forward, there would've been no fight. JMM was simply working off of Pac's aggression.

Also, Ward isn't a great counter puncher. He's efficient but not great at it. But given his work ethic, i'm sure he'll get better.

 

Counter punching requires the most skill and most P4P lists are filled with them. The fights you mentioned JMM/PAC 3, Hopkins/Calzaghe and Froch/Dirrell were all different fights with different circumstances.

It just comes down to what you prefer as a judge. Some like the aggressor. Some stress clean, effective punching. I definitely put clean, effective punching way at the top of the list and then everything else follows.

 

When a counterpuncher connects, their landed shots tend to look more aesthetically pleasing. After all a good counterpuncher should naturally land on an opponent who had just finish throwing his load and is not in a defensive posture. They should be easier to hit. This is the reason, to the untrained eye, why they appear to be more skilled whereas a more offensive fighter has the appearance of looking like primitive brawler. Usually the aggressor has to throw a couple a shots just to get by someones guard before they can land anything of significance. This is hard to do when fighting someone who's always on the backfoot. Its alot HARDER to be successful in these kinds of match-ups for the one who's always initiating the action.

A more accurate depiction should be is, and I think a lot of professional judges will agree with me, that it takes more skill to punch on someone who's in a defensive stance and is in a good countering position. So when you see an aggressor who's at least on even terms with a counterpuncher on landed shots...it's easy to understand why a judge would favor the aggresor. An uneducated brawler would methodically get picked apart by a great counterpuncher, however, when a great offensive fighter like Pac actually outlands a counterpuncher...judges take notice. The problem is, biased fans don't.

 

Man you're a long-winded pretentious douche.

 

All you got from that is "latin". :rofl :rofl :rofl
I don't know how to speak nor write Latin, and only understand Latin words that are either scientific names or close to its English translation, but "Argumentum ad populum" is a well known fallacy, that apparently you don't know jack squat about.
Heck I don't even think you understand that anybody worth his salt argue based on a conclusion that is rooted from factual major and minor premises.
I can go on about the other fallacies you committed like "poisoning the wells", "Argumentum ad hominem", "argument from authority" and yes even the basic "bandwagon".
Here, understand how to argue properly:

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

In short, you didn't make any sense you idiot.
Fallacy = no argument = you don't know ****. :rofl

Don't bother to reply, I know that I owned your ass in the IQ department already. :good
Your IQ has been exposed.:hi:

 

Why these "experts" can't seem to deduce this from the fight is beyond me.
It was clear as hell that the JMM that fought Pac in their previous 2 fights is much much less conservative and that in turn played well in the hands of a Pacquaio with a gameplan of "outboxing a master counterpuncher".

TBH, I don't know that the hell Roach was thinking with that gameplan.
If Katsidis and FMJ was able to do it, I think he should've known better that Pac can still power through JMM like in the previous fights.

 

The underlined point bears noting. Marqueers will point out that Pac's punches were grazing and had no real effect. But then you see these picture stills were these "grazing" shots were definitely ****ing up JMM. Whereas those "clean" punches JMM landed were taken well and tidy. In fact I've seen one gif were Pac got hit straight clean on the face but had enough juice to counter JMM with a quick right. It's absolutely worth noting this when gauging "clean" and EFFECTIVE" punching. At the end of the day how much damage you inflict should be the gold standard of effective punching.


....coz alotta those pitter-patter punches landed had JMM stunned, bruised, and beat up and thus had to be clearly effective.

 

IMO, you have this backwards.

The ability to generate offense by 1) avoiding the offensive attack of a professional fighter and then 2) finding an opening to land your own shots requires tremendous skill (speed advantage, etc.) and ring IQ (ability to see AND capitalize on openings).

Counterpunching is not easy nor should a counterpuncher land more. By its very definition, counterpunching is 'reactionary', which limits it small windows of opportunities. This is what hardcore fans acknowledge when watching a fighter consistently able to counter his opponent.

There's a reason you don't see counterpunchers at your local 'Toughman' competition or bum fights. That sh!t ain't easy and is fraught with risk, especially when you lack the ability to do it effectively.

 

The point in question here is why counterpuncher's have the appearance of being more skilled. I never said counterpunching was easy, rather it is easier to look good doing it. There are nuances about counterpunching suchs baiting and finding openings that does require alotta skill....but when done right the way JMM does, you're landed connects would look better in comparison with someone who initiates the action. The point is still valid---counterpunchers punches on a stationary object or one that is off-balanced whereas guys like Pac is always fighting a moving object in guys like JMM. Here's a lil perspective for ya ( if ya watch baseball)---what's harder to hit, a fastball down the strikezone or a curveball going away? If ya answered curveball than you should get my point....it's easier to time and hit that fastball and look good doing it whereas that curveball is a ***** and requires a helll of a lot more risk=taking (i.e. strikes). You can chase that curveball and get a homerun, but I doubt you would look half as good when you knock a fastball outta the park.

 

i was surprised in the penalosa-deleon fight that most hardcores think penalosa won it due to precise shots and counters. but to me, de leon outlandad penalosa about 3 to 1 even if his shots are not as pleasing to the eye as that of gerry. that fight is a perfect example of counterpunchers getting alot of credit from the hardcore fans. also maybe they factored in that penalosa is a natural 115/118 fighter going-up to fight ponce at 122.

 

exactly