Do fighters get more credit for beating a Big Puncher or Skilled Boxer?

Yes, i think beating big punchers is seen as more impressive.


But something that lies undernearth is more interesting in my opinion: we tend to rate punchers higher than boxers.

For instance, the great punchers, let's say Tyson, Dempsey, Foreman, Liston were all perceived as invincible, no one can last more than 3 rounds, etc, at one point in their careers, and all of them were put down on earth very soon:

Foreman got embarrassed by Ali
Tyson got embarrassed by Douglas
Dempsey got embarrassed by Tunney
Liston got humiliated by Ali

etc etc.

On the other hand, while skilled boxers like Ali, Holmes, Tunney, Young, Holyfield, Lewis, etc are given their dues, they never quite reach the status that the punchers do because they are less fearful. But they may well be more effective at winning and nearly always show a better longetivity, i.e. being more adaptable and wider tested against a variety of styles.

Take that into perspective when rating a puncher highly based on head-to-head speculation - often, these kind of things are not backed up by accomplishments.


Interesting thread, by the way.

 

Thread is indeed interesting, but so is your reply cause it's bang on!! :good

 

In most cases I agree with Chris on punchers being viewed as more invincible, and intimidating. One possible exception though is Frazier's win over Muhammad Ali. This was probably the single best win that any champion ever had, and in this case, it was a puncher overcoming a great boxer.

 

great thread. people dont give fighters enough credit for beating skilled boxers

 

Tyson was put on a pedestal by casual boxing fans who know very little and shill writers and announcers. I think hardcore boxing fans knew better than to think Tyson was invincible. I know I did.

 

Both!

Sign of a special fighter is being able to beat a variety of styles and opponents for a number of years. Outpunching a puncher and outboxing a boxer particularly looks good.

 

Yes.

Inapropriately so in my opinion.

Nobody should be given more credit for beating Earnie Shavers than for beating Jimmy Young for example.

 

It depends.

I think swarmers get more credit for beating a puncher.

I think punchers get more credit for beating boxers

I think boxers get more credit for beating swarmers.

Prime or near prime condition of the fighter and past and present accomplishments factor into the mix too.

 

Good post, agreed on all points.

 

Good post, but i think it's quite clear that FOTC Ali was a better fighter than the Tyson who Douglas beat.

It's hard to rate ragged defence & a one dimensional "one big bomb" mindless haymaker-headhunting 'plan'.

 

Depends on the style of the fight really. I think its a lot easier for a big skilled man to take out a stationary puncher, than it is a small guy to take out a tall mobile skilled technician. Thats why Im not that impressed with Lennox Lewis to rank him so highly, because he was just as big as his opponents and had ten times the skill, because his opposition had no skills for the most part. Anytime Lewis was up against a guy with any kind of decent footwork and boxing skills he was not dominant.

 

No. Ali had irretrievably lost a bit of his most prized assest: his legs. Tyson was physically the same and even though he perhaps neglected some of his skills (but not nearly as much as made out by Tyson fans) they weren't gone. He wasn't at his sharpest, but few are against an unheralded opponent they are expected to just roll over.