Mayweather's victory over Guerrero last night is being praised as another display of Mayweather's brilliance in ad******g and putting to practice the art of hitting and not getting hit. Mayweather employs that art in three ways: (1) to use his legs to move laterally to avoid punches or to escape after countering; or (2) hold an opposing fighter's arms when that fighter avoids the counter and closes the distance to try to smother and then make his escape; or (3) to potshot with single right hand leads or hooks and then employ the running of (1) or the holding of (2). In America and Europe, Mayweather will be rewarded for such tactics because not only do the judges there appreciate this, fans also weened with this philosophy do so as well. They perceive such tactics as a manifestation of the "hit and not get hit" philosophy. The tactics themselves are a display of intelligence because at the end of the day, the winner is perceived to be the one who has touched his opponent more than the loser, and to hell with the manner in which he has done so. In other words, the ends absolutely justify the means. Let us be clear, the art of "hit and not get hit" is a philosophy--not a strategy, tactic, or style--that teaches that victory is attained in man-to-man combat through the use of a style, tactic, or strategy that allows the user to "hit and not get hit." In Mexico, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and throughout Latin America and Asia, another boxing philosophy exists. In these fighting cultures, the superiority of one fighter over another, absent the ko, is measured by determining which fighter has yielded to the will of the other. And not in an abstract sense, like the subjective so-called "ring generalship" standard, but in a tangible, physical sense. It is here, in the judgment of a fight, where these boxing philosophies collide. In other areas, the philosophies intersect in that the winner is determined, usually, by judging which fighter has landed the harder and cleaner blows. However, the manner and disposition employed in landing the harder and cleaner blows is as important, if not more, than the actual landing of the blows. It would not be inaccurate to call this other philosophy the art of "who can withstand more." Americans and Europeans scoff at this philosophy. They find it foolish, destructive, and not at all conducive to achieving the ultimate goal: victory, at least on paper. For American and European fighters, boxing is a means to an end, namely money. Money does not flow to losers in those cultures, only to winners. Thus victory translates into more money. For this reason, the fanatical obsession with wins and losses, and their consequences, place a premium upon those who employ the "hit and not get hit" philosophy and those who judge the fight. Fighters originating in the "who can withstand more" cultures also largely fight for the money. The difference, however, is that fighters displaying the ethos of "who can withstand more" are actually revered and rewarded better there than those who do not. An obsession with wins and losses for such fighters is almost non-existent, except of course when they fight here in the US or Europe. To a "who can withstand more" adherent--fighter, judge, fan-- a fighter employing the tactics of Mayweather to land the harder and cleaner blows necessary to secure victory, is nothing short of disgraceful. These tactics are perceived as displays of cowardice and an unwillingness to impose one's physicality, will, and heart to determine the victor, or worse, as a form of deception. For Latin and Asian fighters, fans, and judges, lateral movement is running away from the fight. That is, an indication that the fighter has ceded his ground and is retreating. It is an acknowledgement by the running fighter that he does not care to engage anymore and that he has been bested in that particular skirmish. Holding on to your opponents arms is an admission that you don't have the confidence in your strength, skill, or desire to exchange fire for fire to see "who can withstand more." Thus it makes it very difficult for an opposing fighter raised in a different boxing philosophy to secure the win in the US or Europe absent the knock-out or employing the same philosophy. And make no mistake, I thought Mayweather beat Guerrero because Guerrero knew the score and needed to score the knockout. But it doesn't mean i scored the fight lopsided for Mayweather. If you did, I'm pretty sure I know which boxing philosophy you belong with.
