Defenders of Defensive Fighters, The Lovers Of The Sweet Science... Are They Posers And Snobs?

People who feel that those who like high movement and defensive based fighters are snobs are much more likely to be casual fans of the sport or hardcore fans of one fighter at a time, from my experiences.

Either way, what people don't understand on this issue is the SET SCORING CRITERIA in professional boxing. And because of peoples' inabilities to value that or stay consistent in their values, it leads to a lot of bickering during debated style clashes.

 

one of the dumbest posts in a thread filled with dumb posts.
if everyone who stepped in the ring prefered the slickster, there would be nothing else competing...they would all be slicksters.
it takes a lot of skill to get to the top, no matter what style they use.
anyone who thinks a brawler can get to the top without lots of skill, is a frickin idiot who knows less about boxing than those he looks down upon in his ignorance. if a brawler has the skill to get to the cutie, then that cutie isnt as skilled as he thought he was.
it takes a lot of boxing skills for a "sweet scientist" to beat the best brawlers in the world, but it also takes a lot of skill for a brawler to beat the best textbook boxers, cause he still has to land those shots.

 

I see what your saying but disagree.
It doesn't get any better than a great defensive fighter staying in the pocket and making his opponent pay with sharp counters. Well... at least to me.

 

didn't read this thread because there must have been too much fl0mo'ism involved.

but there are many different legitimate styles at the professional level. brute foreman crushed frazier where slick ali went life and death. floyd ran from margarito, of all people, because he knew that dynamic. etc. etc.

 

Nevermind!

 

...especially by those who try to make boxing other more than a fight.

 

So interesting thread with many intriguing arguments. However I will speak both from the experience of being in the ring as an amateur who also sparred with pros and as a fan.

I think my biggest pet peeve is not acknowledging the different skill sets need to fight on the outside vs inside. I think outside fighters are automatically deemed more skilled by snobs and boring by casuals. Inside fighters are deemed unskilled by snobs and exciting by casuals. Trained boxers and hardcore fans will see there is a time and place for both and why certain fighters choose certain paths.

I think the more obvious reasons for fighting on the outside are defensive reasons, so I won't go as in depth. However the main skills sets are controlling range, tempo, circling around the opponent to keep them off rhythm and not allowing them to set their feet. The best attributes are height, reach, and speed. So what if you are shorter or slower? You really them only have 3 options.

Option 1 try to also fight on the outside? Wrong, expect to be out-jabbed to death. Option 2 Charge and brawl? You might succeed, but expect to catch hell on the way in and have a short career. Unfortunately most offensive fighters we see today and in general choose this option and what most people argue about with the outside inside debate. I do not lament that many of these fighters are called out for being unskilled, but I do lament that they were not trained in option 3.

Option 3 where I had to rely on most of my amateur career. Option 3 fighters are highly cerebral, very rare, and often unacknowledged as a skills set. These fighters are often mistaken as brawlers. I had to highly rely on my inside skills for a couple of reasons. I was fighting at 147, I was 5'7" 67" reach. My average opponent was 5'10" and 70" reach. So I was at a distinct disadvantage in height, reach, and at times speed. The main skills for making it an inside fight are cutting off the ring, bobbing and weaving, upper body and head movement going forward, timing, and countering when an opponent over-reaches. A side attribute for fighting on the inside is having shorter arms to get off quicker combos. People with long arms have a harder time bringing their hands back for short crisp punches.

So how it played out against outside fighters was that I would have to start with a high guard figure out the timing of the jab. Once I did that I would side step and jab as they jabbed. Once I got better at the timing I would swat the jab down and come with an over hand right. If they over-reached, I could just keep my feet in place or, but just move my upper body and then land a quick combo and side step. To deal with the circling I had to creep forward and side to side (cutting off the ring), while keeping a high guard and bobbing and weaving. This is done purposefully because walking forward allows the opponent go circle around you. Cutting off the ring requires selective and zig zag steps. Basically someone circling from the outside has to travel more distance to get around you, so by me side stepping to where they were going to be mean they were going to run into me, so no choice but to circle the other way, so I would side step to the other side and back and forth we went until they had their back to the corner. Next I had to slip punches to get on the inside and throw a quick combo. This is where many still make the mistake to stand in front of their opponent and just trade. I didn't want to trade, I wanted to get off a quick combo, slip to the side while they try to punch where I was at. I would unleash another quick combo on the side, they would turn to face me and I would dash quickly again to the other side. All of those are very strategic moves that I learned watching the likes of Duran, Chavez Sr, and Mike Tyson.

So no I don't buy the outside fighters are more skilled, nor am I into rockem sockem robots. I liked skilled fights based on tactics, based on what capabilities the fighters have. If a fighter is shorter and slower then he should make it an inside fight. If he is taller and faster then make it an outside fight. There are many more styles, but I compared those two for simplicity.

 

good read :good

 

I wouldn't say they're snobs.

I'd say they have a better understanding of how boxing technique comes into play and its not just two "Neanderthals" punching one another in the face.

To me, I like watching a Matador(Defensive guy) vs a bull(Aggressor).
Some people just like to watch 2 bulls going at it.
Some people find 2 Matadors entertaining! (FMJ vs JMM)

Everybody tends to prefer one or the other.

 

Yeah, I'm still under the under assumption that sweet science guys just enjoy believing they are smarter than everyone else. That somehow "we don't get" or "we can't see" or "if we only understood" They are always coming up with those comments that imply we are just not smart enough "to get it" even after fully explaining we do get it. It all just makes me think that's it's the only aspect they truly enjoy, believing they are enlightened and we are not.

 

I hate fans who try to judge other fans because they like a particular fighter or style. Who gives an F what you think? Most fans don't bother posting stupid videos criticizing how Ward is some immense cheater. Or how Mayweather did this and that. You have though like you're more "educated."

I enjoy boxing and a fan of a certain style. I've boxed a little and I appreciate the styles that gave me the most trouble. It's not snobbery. Stop trying to judge others because they disagree with you. Why can't people just like some fighters for no other reason than to be a fan?

 

Honestly I don't know why this thread is even being bumped.