Boxer beats puncher, puncher beats swarmer, swarmer beats boxer

No offence but this is a load of rubbish really.

 

:nono Starling was no boxer, did you not see him against Breland? ;-)

 

I said no offence?

 

I've still never understood what style a 'puncher' is? Thats not really a description of a style. You could be a puncher and be a boxer or a 'swarmer'.

 

Technically you could be a 'boxer-puncher-swarmer' ;-)

Like, for instance, Roberto Duran.

 

You've ****ed up by using Leonard, Hearns and Duran as examples to illustrate your point....fact of the matter is that they were all excellent technicians, not a swarmer among em.

 

Hearns was just as much a boxer as a puncher in most of his fights.

 

That particular experiment was conducted in a vacuum so the results should be ignored/conveniently forgotten (for the purposes of the thread you understand):deal

 

Thats not really true, you're making George sound like a tomato can with a punch which isn't really fair. I'd say he was a brawler, they're less refined than swarmers and pressure fighters but they still have a clue.

My point is, no matter how much you're reliant on that punch you have to have a style also. You can't just be a puncher. If a puncher is a style is 'feather fisted' a style?

 

True, you could be a very technically adept swarmer...but then you wouldn't call it swarming...probably "relentless pressure fighter", it sounds better :thumbsup