Best Wins Ever Where A Boxer Overcame a STYLISTIC DISADVANTAGE

Hey Dinamita do you agree with Mayorga overcoming a stylistic disadvantage over Forrest.... Cause Sweet pea has it the other way around, and for once I have to disagree with Pea.

 

In hindsight, I'm upgrading Morrison vs Foreman from a lesser example to a prime one.

 

Obviously theres been way better wins. I just couldn't think of any at the time so Calzaghe-Hopkins came to mind as overcoming a stylistic disadvantag..so yeah.

 

chavez-taylor

 

also taylor-pavlik

 

Archtypical swarmer would be for example Jirov, archtipical boxer would be someone like Mikkel Kessler, and archtypical counterpuncher would be someone like James Toney.

its a flawed rule of course. Most fighter's styles are not so cast in stone. But it often works.

Think Mijares vs Darchinyan vs Donaire (though its not a given Mijares could beat Donaire, I think he has the style to trouble him)

Also Hopkins / Taylor / Pavlik

Hopkins / Calzaghe / Kessler.

 

Can't agree with that, Hopkins claimed straight after the fight, "Made him look amateur" while I'm sure I've read you describe him as sloppy and ineffective. A counter puncher like Hopkins should have an easy time against an ineffective, sloppy amateur yet he was hit more times than in any of his previous fights.

 

Simply in terms of styles the following spring to mind;

Benn v Mclellan
SRL v Duran II (despite the controversial finish, SRL was on a way to a points win despite being schooled first time round)
Sweet Pea v Azumah Nelson (possibly just an aged version?)
MAB v Morales II

 

Hasim Rahman over Lewis.

Pulled it off by taking Lennox off his game plan and nullified all his superior attributes.

 

:huhNelson held no stylistic advantage, nor was he past his prime. Whitaker was just the better fighter and the better stylist, especially for a Nelson-type fighter.

 

A few examples of the past few months (of course sometimes it's very hard to judge who's in stylistic disadvantage, but usually the skilled, slick or very accurate and defensively genious has the advantage on paper.)

Darchinyan-Mijares (Cristian's pure counterpunching, slickness)
Calzaghe-Kessler (Kesslers quick, strong, straight, accurate textbook style)
Cotto-Mosley (Mosley's speed, size, inside fighting advantage)
Campbell-Diaz (Diaz' high pace, aggressiveness, volume punching)
Caballero-Molitor (Molitor's speed, skill level and counterpunching)
Holyfield-Valuev (Valuev's jabbing, size advantage)
Adamek-Cunningham (Cunningham's speedy, powerful, slick style)
Quintana-Williams (Williams' size, power, punch output advantage)
Urango-Ngoudjo (Ngoudjo's quick, busy, skilled style)
Hatton-Malignaggi (quickness, slickness, skills - the style that beat Ricky in the Mayweather fight - at least on paper, Malignaggi had the advantage.)

 

Come on guys, learn what a stylistic disadvantage is, someone had Fraziers win over Ali? :huh

 

Put bluntly, sheer physicality can go a long way towards rendering a style moot. Molitor, Ngoudjo, and Manfredo sure didn't ever look "quick, busy and skilled" against bigger, stronger men.

I also think it's dangerous to typecast a fighter too early in his career. We all saw Adamek bang with Briggs and Dawson, but then we essentially saw him outbox Cunningham with accurate counterpunches, at least in the moments in counted by scoring knockdowns. Same goes for Vic over Mijares, Vic was at least equal technically that night. Caballero was superior to Molitor in every shape form or fashion, including from the outside. And then Nate overcame his "disadvantage" by fighting fire with fire.

In the end, rock-paper-scissors models only work so well.

 

Lamata's win over Sugar Ray Robinson