Front runner/late fader or slow starter/momentum builder?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by IntentionalButt, Jan 27, 2010.


  1. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    Is it better at a high level of competition to be able to make a large bank deposit of early rounds, or to be able to "come on strong" in the second half after taking a while to warm up?

    Or, is it better to not have one's efforts highly concentrated - neither front-loaded or rear-loaded, but rather just consistent without intensity all the way through for 12 rounds?

    Example of the three types above would be Zab Judah & Jermain Taylor (front runners); Felix Trinidad & Antonio Margarito (slow starters); and Glen Johnson & Juan Diaz (consistent bell to bell, with no spurts of intensity at any period).
     
  2. dbouziane

    dbouziane ............. Full Member

    11,049
    27
    Nov 4, 2007
    well if your gonna take off like a bottle rocket and fade late you better be able to take your man out early. jermain would be an atg if fights lasted 5-6 rounds. on the flip side of that coin if your gonna feel your man out and take several rounds to get in a rythym you better be able to impose your will on your opponent. pavlik is another notoriously late starter that has made his name imposing his will as the fight wears on.

    if your one of those types of fighters you better be damn good at what you do or you'll eventually get caught. although from what i've seen your better set up for success if you have stamina and can last the whole fight and get stronger as the fight wears on as opposed to the other way around.

    as far as fighting at a consistant pace throughout...it can be a blessing or a curse depending on how good your opponent is at being a fast starter or a strong closer.
     
  3. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    So it sounds like you'd go with option #4 above...probably my pick as well. :think You're right, having poor stamina in deep water wouldn't matter much if you have the KO power and accuracy to get to everybody and hurt them early on. Of course, guys who have that ability at lower levels don't always find that it translates to the bigger stage when they step up. Late starters like Pavlik need to make sure they come on at the right time or they could run out of time and lose on points. Something like a point deduction or flash knockdown can screw up their whole gameplan. And never having any moments of high intensity, like the rock-steady Johnson and Diaz, can lead to losing a lot of rounds they maybe shouldn't because the judges are impressed by the other person's energy and underwhelmed by theirs.
     
  4. dbouziane

    dbouziane ............. Full Member

    11,049
    27
    Nov 4, 2007
    this is a good thread. nice break from the pbf/pac/ped threads. :good

    that's a good point about a point deduction or flash kd screwing up a late starter. i think that a great example of someone winning the later rounds and seemingly swaying the judges based on that despite his opponents great start was the odlh/tito fight. now, oscar just sort of quit and didnt fade but its the same concept. judges sometimes, and i stress sometimes, seem to favor the guy who comes on strong the second half of the fight and takes over. in that respect, being a dominant second half fighter can advantageous.

    however, your right about the ability to get your man out early negating any disadvantage a fighter has in the wind department going into the later rounds. mcclellan is a good example of that.

    would you consider winky consistant? i sort of would. i think that helped him against tito b/c he never faded, never deviated...but may have hurt him against jermain depsite winky backing him up at points in the fight.
     
  5. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    ODLH/Tito is one of the very fights I had in mind, great example of a clash of types A and B. Oscar let himself fade in the same manner against Floyd, too (who's more of a cross of somewhere between a B and a C).

    And I definitely agree with Winky being a C type, and your assessment of both those fights. He probably lost rounds to Jermain on the basis of looking exactly the same round after round, with the judges sort of taking his consistent but repetitive work for granted and looking for something different to sort of snap them awake. Meanwhile, Tito was expecting to gain his usual foothold and it just never came that night.
     
  6. WhataRock

    WhataRock Loyal Member Full Member

    35,030
    18,305
    Jul 29, 2004
    I think the last option sums it up well IB...different tactical approaches work against different fighters, much the same way as styles do.
     
  7. futonrevolution

    futonrevolution Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,304
    0
    Nov 22, 2008
    With a 'C,' too many of the variables are based on what the opponent is bringing to the table - unless they're consistently imposing their will, rounds are often the other guy's to lose, rather than C's round to win.

    With 'A,' you're eventually going to rise to a level or come up against an awkward style that won't let you get away with too many early risks or later coasting.

    Of course, 'D' is the best answer, but (as a general rule) I'm going with 'B.' With a spoiler style, consistent body work and/or decent counter-punching power, enough of the middle rounds may swing your way to make the difference against many other styles.
     
  8. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    Yeah, this topic seems to be very much as complex as styles.

    (some might argue that this characteristic is a part of overall "styles", but the specificity of stamina and energy budgeting interests me a great deal)

    It could well be that at the top level of the sport, as illustrated in dbouziane's examples above with Winky (and throwing in Pavlik-Taylor), that when dealing with top-level talent, something like distribution of effort (how much & when) - like styles themselves - can have a major impact on splitting boxers otherwise on the same tier.

    It may be that we have a pattern roughly like the classic styles-making-fights rudimentary hierarchy that is often cited to debunk A beats B beats C so A beats C logic.

    Much like:

    Infighter > boxer/mover > swarmer > infighter

    it could be that

    Slow starter > Front runner > Rock steady > Slow starter.

    :think
     
  9. eliqueiros

    eliqueiros Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,344
    7
    Oct 25, 2007
    I always think of Leonard and Hearns facing each other the first time. They both had power for ko in all out war but they felt each other out for the first six rounds. Fighters like Duran and Pacquaio are blessed in that they can come out at the first bell guns blazing and still have enough in the gas for the late rounds to go out guns blazing as well. For the mere mortal world class boxers, its better to control your pace.
     
  10. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    Interesting, so far not one vote for bagging 6-7 rounds and then taking it easy. It sure is a popular choice among boxers when matched tough! :lol:
     
  11. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,291
    23
    Sep 21, 2006
    I voted for

    It is preferable to let the engine ease into a nice hum, and then crank it up as the opponent tires

    On the basis that no matter how dominant one fighter is very early in the fight judges are likely to squeeze an undeserving round or 2 for the other guy so the fight would still be competetive and winnable for him.
     
  12. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    Well, Lopez-Mtagwa is a good example of the strong starter investing enough to "just hang on" and still get the nod over the strong closer (albeit controversial...and the end was dangerous...still, at the end of the day he got the W).
     
  13. Arriba

    Arriba Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    27,148
    5
    Jun 30, 2007
    Honestly? I think it depends on your ability to take a punch.

    If you have a granite chin, you can absolutely take your time and build momentum. It's a lot easier to build up knowing you don't have a fundamental flaw in your punch resistance.

    If you have a weaker chin, then you probably need to be a front runner.
     
  14. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    Best is to be able to fight at your highest level for the full 12.
     
  15. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,522
    83,336
    Nov 30, 2006
    So that would be C type, then, right? No spurts, just an even flow?

    My assumption is that you mean the highest level one is capable of maintaining for a full 12 rounds. The absolute highest level someone can perform at, "kicking into overdrive" so to speak, is the level at which front runners perform early and strong closers perform late. To perform reasonably well throughout, one would have to hold back a little (but still not slack off) and not quite kick into overdrive as very few are physically able to sustain this for too long - but to perform at a nice, moderate pace and energy level.

    Curiously, one of the only fighters with the conditioning and natural ability to do as you say literally is Pacquiao. He is in overdrive in the 1st round, and still in the 12th. Most people don't have that option, however, and have to compromise in some sense (with A, B, and C each being a sort of compromise).