Not so simple it isn't pokemon where squirtle will wreck charmander. All a fight is, is out-thinking your opponent an "Out boxer" is just someone who never developed an inside game so when it comes knocking those lazy hours in the gym are exposed, if you boxed you would know that your trainer preps you for every layer of fighting what you use is your choice. Most ATGs just run with what they excel at look at how flawed Ali was as a huge example he could have looked like Bowe on the inside if he bothered to put in the hours
The best trainers adapt to the fighters strength imo. You wouldn’t train Mayweather to fight like Pac right? Would t train Ali to fight like Patterson. Or Tyson to fight like Holmes.
'Brawlers like Sonny Liston... ' It seems that this video is shooting itself in both feet. And being a southpaw is not a style, it's a stance.
Obviously not, but if you play to there strengths so much that they have glaring weaknesses you are not doing it right Floyd is perfectly well rounded and has amazing rough housing and inside fighting all fighters have the potential to be great inside and outside fighters with dedication
Different fighters — or athletes in any sporting endeavor — have different aptitudes for various skill sets. You can train a tight end to be a quarterback but that doesn’t mean you can make him a good one. Same with trying to teach a short-armed guy to fight from a distance. It’s probably going to be a weakness even if you can improve his ability to do it. A trainer can work to shore up weaknesses but the idea that you should teach Thomas Hearns to fight like Joe Frazier or vice-versa so they can be ‘well-rounded’ in all styles is laughable. You coach people to maximize their strengths and protect them from their weaknesses.
You aren't getting my meaning those are drastic I am saying that someone like Joe should not try to be like Hearns but that he should have learnt to operate better at more then one distance within his dimensions as I said with my first example If Ali could fight inside he would have had less trouble with a lot of guys he just abandoned it all together obviously he was successful regardless. See Louis for someone who is the epitome of what I am getting at
That whole thing of boxer/swarmer/slugger/etc... is nonsensical. That is why boxing people don't respect the fans. "Styles make fights " is true. It is also the biggest copout in the world if you can't explain what it is about Fighter A's style that will trouble Fighter B.
Yes! I've won a lot of boxing bets, by betting on styles to win the day, when abilities were comparable. A lot of people reject the concept and that's why they lose a lot of boxing bets. Ali over Liston. Foreman over Frazier. Then Ali over Foreman, are great examples. I went against it because I thought Ali was enough better than Frazier to overcome the style, and It cost me that time. Ali did prove me right in their next two meetings, but I couldn't find anyone willing to bet on Frazier. I definitely wanted Liston over Patterson, but I couldn't find anyone in my circle willing to bet against Sonny in that fight. Great post, Janitor!
Every good fighter has his own unique style. There are thousands upon thousands of unique fighters. At the top level, it's adaptability, ring IQ, that matters even more than general "technical" style.
I never heard the word "swarmer" related to boxing outside of the internet, and rarely outside of this forum. I've probably used it myself here because it's become so prevalent, but in real life I never have or would. It's a ridiculous idea.
