Expert opinions on Marciano VS Liston

Yes if the boxer is tall and has a good chin they would be the advantages as well wouldn’t they?

But yes, a taller guy with a good chin who boxes well should beat a swarmer more times than the swarmer beat him.

I would think, two guys of equal proportion, equal experience one being a boxer one being a swarmer it would even things up a whole lot and then it would depend on who was able to be more effective with their style rather than who had what style.

 

but it has to be an advantage in the first place. It’s like saying a jab is an advantage over a hook. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t. Or any other two punches. Two identical punches. They can all be overcome. All things being equal where is the advantage? The advantage is always discovered once one guy works the other out or out works him.

Speed is actual. It can be overcome but doing something faster than somebody else is actual. They actually are faster.

right. Speed is over come. Style is overcome by preventing the other guy from being good at what he does or drawing him into the wrong fight.

well I was trying to inject humour into the scenario because I felt bad for you.

Theoretically the ingle style of boxing has been described as a limbo style. The defensive leaning back, parrying and switch hitting. And the sumo type mauling tactics of some fighters does exist. I merely combined two extremes for entertainments sake. And to make a point.

 

This is the discussion in question you are clearly involved in and you call me crazy do you not?

 

if two boxers are of equal ability within their respective styles then they are equal. If one is more effective why does it have to mean they are no longer equal ability? It just means one is pulling away. It might mean one becomes more frustrated, less focused than the other. He’s still equal but things are getting to him. Two guys have equal success against the other one copes better with it than the other. It dosnt have to be style.

 

joe Frazier said a lot of things. Crucially he emphasised “whatever your opponent wants to do don’t let him” he’s not saying “because of style advantage you will always be screwed”. He offered ways of getting around each style of fighter and actually endorsed adapting to each type of opponent rather than using one style all the time unless of course you are like him with a strong defined style most can’t deal with. He said stuff like slug with a boxer and box with a slugger if I remember rightly. He also said most fighters are a combination of all of the styles. He was.

style is actual. Tactics are the advantage.

“The style in itself relies on reflexes and flexibility. I think whoever said it did not teach footwork was wrong, Graham relied heavily on his footwork and his limbo style upper body movement. If a fighter of this style could incorporate a good jab i think it would have improved it, but maybe the unorthodoxity of the style is what made it so difficult. People became fixated with the style, you often heard commentators say 'who do you spar to prepare for Graham' , the men who beat him Kalambay and McCallum were both consumate boxers with good jabs and classic skills. He fought them both very close. Naz took it the furthest, but he was a great athlete with concussive power. Would he have been as good with more traditional skills ? Not a chance, he was short and elusive, his style was perfect for him.” - riggers June 19 2011 on this forum.

 

He becomes better because he is stopping the other guy Doing what he does best. Don’t let the other man do what he does better than you. You have to fight the kind of fight you are better at.

 

styles exist. Styles matter. Where does Frazier say “style advantage”?

and there’s you thinking I made it up. it took me one second to check. There’s bound to be loads more examples. The Ingle style of boxing was often called the “limbo style” around the gyms within the inner circle of boxing.

 

I read that book years ago, I would have remembered that expression. I had a flick through earlier but didn’t find “advantage” after the word “style”. Maybe it’s there, maybe it isn’t. It was an instruction book. I recall a breakdown of the styles and what to do to overcome each style. I recall Frazier saying he was part one style and part another. Mostly he was banging on about not fighting the other mans fight.

I would like to know what you think a style advantage is. Do you see it as an ingrained thing. You say you don’t see it as a decisive as the Rock Paper Scissors definition. But I wonder where you would apply it and under what circumstances. One guy cannot be favoured because of style advantage even though we all fully accept each style can overcome the other. It’s all a bit wishy washy and definitely not set in stone.

 

Marciano was down for a count of 3 against Walcott and for a count of 4 against Moore.