Common Opponents Flaw

Styles often negatively impact the common opponents measuring stick.

 

Common opponents as a measuring stick is not a perfect tool by any means. However it is better than no tool. You can get an idea of how the fighters being compared stack up against a similar style and get an idea of how their speeds and power compare. If you have a few common opponents then your analyses can be combined for a more effective snapshot.

Sometimes comparing similar opponents is also useful, for example in assessing how the fighters in question react to being crowded or to a stinging jab.

 

For want of better resources, resumes can be compared using complexion/outcomes against common opponents but it isn’t necessarily reliable when considering H2H outcomes - that’s where styles come into the equation in more ways than one.

Say fighter A might beat B (even more than once) but B’s resume might reflect much greater success against a broader range of styles.

For a good example, see Ken Norton who arguably beat Ali 2 out of 3 times - notwithstanding same, Norton’s resume doesn’t at all compare to that of Ali’s - and though Ken was easily crushed by Foreman, Ali went on to beat that same Foreman anyway - so Ali’s win over Foreman might or might not have been seen to have mooted the common opponent comparison.

At least in the case of their outcomes vs AJ, Usyk arguably beat younger, better versions of AJ twice already and Usyk did go on to defeat Dubois himself also.

Punchers knock opponents out and boxers comprehensively outbox their opponents - that’s just what they do, each doing what they do best.

So an early and relatively easy KO vs a through outboxing (perhaps including a later round stoppage via accumulation) of a common opponent might be viewed, on a case by case basis, as being somewhat on par - just in my view.

 

I see the temptation to use it but it is a flawed criteria and tells you noting at the elite level. Same with cross era comparisons, void of information at elite level. 60s Ali could actually lose to Dubois if they actually fought - we don’t know because they didn’t fight. Boxing has too many variables for time invariant objective evaluation to even be possible.

 

People like to use it to make their arguments. Sometimes it might work. Sometimes there are other variables.

In the case of Fury and AJ with Wallin and MMA, people were missing out key variables.

With Wallin, Fury obviously got a freaky cut very early and that changed the whole fight and he couldn't see properly. Also, Wallin was a sparring partner for AJ which means AJ already had direct experience with him. These are massive variables.

With MMA , AJ and team had the advantage of seeing what the opponent could do in a boxing match and also AJ has a better team that wouldn't be stupid enough to shrug off a puncher like that and not prepare properly. AJ would be. But the team, no.

Fury has one of the worst teams in 'elite' boxing. He gets by basically on talent alone.

 

Anyone that knows anything about boxing and/or isn’t just being blinded by bias knows this is a stupid argument.

That’s why things like “styles make fights” have been said long before Internet forums..

 

Well, there is a big resume gap between Canelo and Surace. In AJ vs Fury case not so much. That's why it's being used to try to compare the two. Especially when you have 5 common opponents, not just 1, as style makes fights sometimes.

At the end of the day, nothing settles the debate more than the actual fight. But even then, Buster Douglas beat Mike, is he really better than him?

 

Canelo didn`t get floored by Bruno and Ruiz got floored by AJ, Dubois has more power than Usyk that`s why he knocked AJ out, Usyk still dominated AJ though he just doesn`t have Dubois power, also Dubois was badly rocked at the end of his fight v AJ while Usyk was never in that kind of trouble v AJ.

 

it is more likely to be the other way around. men across the board in alis reign had a third more natural testosterone than men today. your grand daddy was 1/3 more man than you. he was born with more natural peds. testosterone is what makes animals dominant. hyenas are the only animals where the females have more testosterone than the males, and they run the show.
im not saying that in itself is proof that ali would school todays fighters, even though i think he would, but its better than no evidence to the contrary at all.

 

The old saying styles make fights is 100% correct. Other things need to be taken into account as well like in any sport some guys will just be switched on and have a great night and sometimes everything goes to **** and you have a bad night.

 

I’ll just say again, comparing resumes is exactly that - a treatment that can be entirely separate to H2H calculations in respect of the holders of said resumes.

Styles do make fights - and a resume could possibly indicate which fighters own style has been most successfully applied against all manner of other styles which, aside from H2H considerations or even possibly material H2H complexion(s) and outcome(s), could answer the question as to who the “greater” fighter is.

There has been the suggestion that since AJ was better informed re Ngannou, he yielded a better outcome than Fury - as if to discredit AJ’s comparative victory or allow concessions for Fury’s own struggles against Ngannou.

That conclusion ignores the very stylistic meshes involved.

At best, Fury likely doesn’t blow Francis away as AJ did anyway - power certainly isn’t Tyson’s forte.

Now if Tyson had thoroughly outboxed Ngannou and perhaps stopped him via accumulation in the mid to later rounds - I personally might not rate that as a lesser win than AJ’s < 2 round destruction of Francis.

Rather, each fight could simply be interpreted to represent the personalised style by which Fury and AJ ideally achieve their clear victories

In terms of just comparing resumes only for the
very sake of same, the key question would remain - whose style is ultimately more successfully applied against the greatest range of styles?