Offense vs defense in boxing

A good defense leads to offencive oppertunities.

 

Pea vs Chavez is the exact opposite. It shows just how much a defnesive fighter has to dominate in order to win. A defensive guy has less of a chance to score a KO and judges don't look too kindly on defensive fighters, that's why pea's record looks the way it does. he beat guys like chavez, DLH, ramirez, but didn't get the nod because judges don't care for a defensive style unless you absolutly and completly dominate a guy like say Winky vs Trinidad (which is a better example of a great defense beating a great offense).

 

Then the offensive fighter in your scenario never landed anything while the defensive fighter was able to block 100 per cent of the punches at the same time sneak a punch or two?

It seems that the bias is against the offensive fighter.

Very very very good offensive fighter always wins against a very very very good defensive fighter. However the diference is really how to make a comparison on how great a defensive fighter relative to an offensive fighter as these are two different skillset. Example, would you say that sweet pea defense is equal to tyson's offense? Is there a scale that could be used to make a comparison?

 

No one can get to the highest levels of boxing without having an effective offense, so I went with D. On the other hand you can have **** defense, but still win big fights by simply punching the **** out of everyone. For these two reasons Mr. Defense is moar "complete" than his counterpart.

When two of them match up both have had moar knowledge in dealing with other offense based boxers due to the nature of the sport. The crazy offense based one might not even know how to deal with defense wizards, but the defender has been beating aggressive offense minded fighters throughout his entire career. The O will be forced to play the game of the D.

Just because someone is defense minded doesn't mean they can't use offense back. It simply means they focus on winning while taking the least punishment possible. They still have to punch to win, and they should have moar knowledge in destroying people's weapons compared to offense freaks. The defense fighter knows how to protect his own weapons, but what will an offense fighter do once their weapons are destroyed?

 

Using your analogy the offensive guy usually either loses the first fight or loses the second fight.

 

He didn't get the nod because of a curupt Don King's bought and paid for judges in the JCC fight. He didn't get the nod in the Oscar fight because Oscar was the Golden Boy and was the next big thing and it wasn't a robbery it was a close fight. The only time he was truely robbed out of the fights you listed was the JCC fight where he put on a clinic and Ramirez.

I could also point out Hopkins-Tito as another example of great defense beating great offense.

 

Excellent post!

 

Hopkins vs Tito is another example of absolut domination though. My point is that in the judges eyes it's a lot easier for an agressive offensive fighter to get the nod and in close fights he usually will ie. Hopkins vs Taylor, DLH vs Trinidad, Vargas vs Wright etc. A defensive guy has to win a lot more convicingly.

 

On the same note, just because he is an offensive that he could not have a decent defense. Although by history, most offensive fighters have rudimentary defense, e.g. Valero.

However, since this is hypothetical, a great offensive fighter with basic defensive skill would still topple a great defensive fighter with basic offensive skill.

Your scenario plays out only if the Offensive fighter has really no defense at all.

This is actually a debate of an egg or chicken. The only good answer reflects personal biases. If you like eggs, then the egg answer is the best, but if you like chicken then we can all eat KFC fried chicken.

 

This. Offense = defense and vice versa. They're equally important.

 

Fair post. I see your point.:good

 

I'm saying it's moar likely that the defensive fighter is good at both, but the offensive one is great at offense only since you can get by without being too good at D.

Mr. D doesn't want to have the wrong defense to offense ratio in big fights because that's a formula to get your AZZ robbed like thewoo pointed out. He has to avoid letting himself be outworked; sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

 

All Floyd/Pernell fans will vote defense, Pac/Chavez/mexicans will vote offense