There have been several great upsets in the past few months, by aging fighters over younger fighters, and naturally lighter fighter over a naturally heavier opponent. Besides the great boxing skill and training, which most at that top level hve, to me the what seems to be the glaring difference is the LACK of Strategy by many of the top fighters and their camps. Is it coming to past that, the skill of a fighter can be overcome by a great strategy that is conceived and followed by another? IF so, is the Strategy of boxing something of the past? Are many of the these trainers/boxers truly overrated and have simply been living on simple skill and NO STRATEGY? Is there a bankruptcy of PURE STRATEGIST at the top level of trainers/coners?
very, very true. to be honest, i still don't think kelly or margo would win with a different strategy for the reason they are not thinking fighters in the ring. whether they know they are behind, they didnot change anything about their gameplan, just make the best out of their physical attributes, and make the best out of that, while B-hops and recently Mosley, with the punch and clinching he did in the first rounds, adapt to their opponents styles and change it up abit from round to round. ever since he lost to forrest, i had never seen shane clinch so much, but it proved very affective vs. margarito
Boxing isnt a chess match. Talent ALWAYS prevails. Whomever has the better boxing skills 9 times out of 10 always wins. It wouldnt have mattered what strategy Pavlik or Margarito had employed they simply were not good enough. It should have been there trainers that pointed out the weakness`s in there defense and style and made them work on that. There simply not complete fighters.
Fighters who have dominated because of their size - fighters who have an unusual ability to make weight below what their height should ordinarily allow (Williams, Margarito, Pavlik, maybe Kessler), find it very difficult to come up with a 'plan B' when that size advantage proves not to be enough. Maybe it's a laziness, maybe it's an instilled belief that the size advantage will always be enough. But, either way, you see it over and over: guys who walk into the ring as champion, planning to dominate from above their opponent, and then getting chopped down when the opponent actually has a superior strategy.
I suppose there are guys that are bona-fide strategists, notably Floyd sr, Roger, and Richardson - you could throw Freddie Roach into the mix as well. There are then other guys that can come up with strategies for their fighter to beat another - Billy Graham for Hatton vs Tszyu.... but that style would be ineffective against another kind of opponent. Then you have clueless trainers like Enzo Calzaghe, who just happens to have a freakishly gifted boxer as a son (I hate him though!). Look at all his other fighters, he tries to turn them into Joe mk II, mk III and mk IV - they all got splattered by the first good fighter they faced.
The fighter is the one with the skills, the trainer/corner people are the ones who are to come up with the proper strategy considering the opponent and the skills and qualities of their fighters. I just don't feel as if, we are seeing top notch fighters going into matches with any type of solid strategy or even well thought out back up plan. That seems to be fault of the trainers, the are like the head coach of the team.....and they call the plays and the fighter executes......
