Lennox Lewis when he was 'on'..

In regards to Lennox Lewis bouts, the aggressor has to be effectively aggressive at all times to be an aggressor?

Good for you. Its certainly showing. So when you say look into a mirror, what if its cracked and I don't see my full reflection? I'm not effectively looking at the mirror, therefore would you say I'm not looking at the mirror at all? I'm looking at nothing. And than we can conclude I'm not "looking" at all. Does this logic sit well with you, college boy?

 

-No. You have it backwards. Just because a fighter is aggressive, doesn't mean he's being effectively aggressive. That's why people specificy "effective aggression" Are you sure you went to college and grasp the language?

-Aggression doesn't cease to be aggression because its unsuccessful. Aggression ceases to be aggression when it is no longer aggression. :nut

-Ruddock coming foward and throwing punches is being aggressive rather its effecting Lewis or not. It would cease to be aggression if Ruddock stopped coming forward and forced Lewis to lead.

-No, I honestly can't believe you are this stupid.

 

I can't believe I have to explain this to a college graduate.

But I can punch a wall with the aim of smashing it down, but the wall doesn't move, but I'm still being aggressive to the wall.

I can punch a wall, the wall will smash. I was being effectively aggressive to the wall.

Or I can not throw a punch at all, and wait for the wall to make the first move, I'm not being aggressive.

Or say the wall is like an Indiana Jones wall, it moves towards me, The wall is the aggressor.

Say the wall comes towards me, I take a few steps back, and stick my hand out and stop it. The wall is still being the aggressor, I'm reacting to it defensively.

Maybe in general, the wall keeps coming, and I keep sticking my hand out defensively. Maybe I occassionally take the first swing, but overall, I'm still defending myself against a moving wall. Maybe the wall stops. Would you conclude I was the aggressor because the wall stopped? Did your mom drop you on your head or does Lennox Lewis just make you all hot and illogical?

 

So let's see if I understand this. If someone walks forward in a fight and continuously gets hit, and hit hard, and fails to land anything of note, then simply because he's coming forward, he's the aggressor? Is that your definition of the world aggressor?

 

He would be the ineffective aggressor (and presumptive loser) in that scenario, yes.

"Aggressor" is a neutral term. It's neither positive nor negative in terms of its context within a fight and "who's winning". It just is what it is, and only takes on definition on the positivity-negativity scale only as informed by the circumstances around it.

"Effective aggression", however, is a positive phrase.

 

Sorry but this isn't even worthy of a reply.

 

So you are now calling both men the aggressors? Originally you argued Ruddock was not an aggressor and only someone with an agenda would say such a thing.

 

Thanks for injecting some common sense in this damn madhouse.

 

In truth, you read it, realized how stupid you sound, and decided there is no way you can respond that will salvage your original comments.

 

Okay, then Ruddock was an ineffective aggressor, and Lewis was an effective aggressor. Unless of course the term aggressor is someone exclusive to it being only applicable to one fighter.

Seems to me that fights are dynamic, not static and roles can change in a split second, and often both fighters come into a fight with the idea of trying to be the aggressor or trying to control the middle of the ring, or trying to establish their jabs, and usually only one prevails. In this particular case, Ruddock wanted to be the aggressor, and Lewis wanted the same role and therefore wouldn't let him.

 

There can be two aggressors simultaneously, yeah (one effective and one ineffective - or rather, one more effective as the case may be) - or none, actually. It depends on what's happening.

 

Whatever turns crank. If I think something is worth responding to, I'll respond.

You seem to thing a fighter being aggressive is mutually exclusive in the sense that if one tries to be the aggressor the other automatically can't also try and be the aggressor. There was not clear cut aggressor in that fight, but Lewis was clearly the effective aggressor.

 

Which is my point exactly. Specific to this fight, they were both trying to be the aggressor, and Lewis was at the very least the more effective aggressor.

 

Lewis for the majority of the first round is playing the reactionary role to an aggressive opponent. I would say he effectively evaded and counter punched.

Well of course. Lewis became the aggressor in the second round when he hurt Ruddock the second time and went for the finish.

But that's not the point. My point was that Lewis got Ruddock into that position and beat him by not coming out guns blazing as being claimed, but by fighting defensively and counter punching.

 

I didn't realize at the time, I had to use the word "effective" aggressor rather than just aggressor. I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the term aggressor, used in a boxing context, universally meant "effective aggressor."

I have no problem calling both fighters aggressors, but one was an ineffective aggressor and one was an effective aggressor. It's YOU who can't seem to grasp the fact that Lewis was an aggressor in that fight.