Offense vs defense in boxing

I would say the defensive counter puncher has better chance.

 

I'm a defensive fighter myself but even I have good enough offense, I need it. Boxing is still about punching your opponent so even great defensive fighters need a good offence and those fighters usually become counterpunchers. You can win a boxing fight alone on offense but you can't do that with defense because you still need to have an offense if you wanna win. Defense is great for setting traps and making your opponents miss so you can set up your offense but no fighter can win a fight purely on 100% defense they need to commit to offense at least sometimes. It's really hard to say what style beats what style because every fighter is different and that's the beauty of the sport. You never know who will come out on top when two fighters with different styles matchup.

Sorry I didn't see you put counterpunching until I almost finished my post lol. But to conclude this post, workrate is still a factor to consider.

 

i would say offensive

a offensive fighter has more chances of getting KO's and stoppages so it gives them more winning options

 

I see what you're trying to do, soslid4u09.

 

Offense sells tickets but defense wins championships.:deal IMO good defense will almost always counter good offense. That's the main reason why defensive counter-punchers are stylistic nightmares for most. And when you see good offensive fighters go up against them their work rate drops their accuracy drops and they often are clueless as to how to attack and are completely taken apart and out of their game.

 

I take issue with the assertion that offense beats defense in basketball. I disagree, but I guess that should be taken up in a different forum.

As for boxing, there are so many other intangibles to be accounted for, it's impossible to just say offensive or defensive style is better.

 

You know exactly what you are scheming. Just look at those keywords you decided to use.

I go with the defense specialist. Someone can be a great boxer with only offense, but there are no elite boxers out there who don't know how to punch. The defense wizard's weapons may not be as flashy, but his offense is still highly effective. For those reasons alone the defense oriented fighter is much moar "complete".

Mr. Defense has been playing his game for much longer than Mr. Offense. Mr. Offense beat fighters throughout his career who were willing to cooperate by focusing on shooting heavy artillery. The D specialist is seasoned to forcing everyone to react to his style. When the two go head to head Mr. D has much moar experience dealing with Os than vice versa.

 

Well, the defensive fighter might be TOO concerned with defense to maintain a sustained offense, and thus, loses the fight. This is how I see Pacquiao-Mayweather turning out.

 

you need both but if i had to have one superior i think it would be defence

 

Pea-Chavez is a prime example of how great defensive boxer schools a great offensive boxer. PBF-Pac will be no different.:deal

 

If everything is in perfect scenario, and assumig that the defensive fighter blocks everything that the offensive fighter throws (which is a dilemna since he is supposed to be a perfect offensive machine but if the defensive fighter can not block, you are again at a dilemna because he is supposed to be a perfect defensive boxer) then you will have a stalemate!

However, since you have judges and judges favor those that are offensive, then a decision for the offensive player even if he does not land any single shot! Blocking 100 percent of the shot does not win you any round but landing not a single punch might get you the judges nod.

I always think it this way: who wins between the two, the one firing the gun or the one wearing the bulletproof vest?