Skillsets Are Overated on ESB, While Effectiveness Is Underated... Agree?

The reason why being hung up on skill set is silly is because there are so many 'directions' that a fight can end up going.

Sometimes a limited fighter can negate the main strength or advantage that a very skilled fighter has, and that alone can easily allow a "limited" fighter the capability to compete with a fighter with the "skill set"

Perfect example: Margarito vs Cotto. There is certainly a possibility that Margarito could negate Cotto's big strength by smothering Cotto's foot positioning and balance just by being all over him for 12 rounds. Things like this changes the dynamics of fights, and **** like this can happen in ANY fight.

There isn't a more dynamic sport than boxing, anything can change the way a fight plays out ANYTHING.

 

But what Im implying here is that PAC isnt the Giants who had a great Sunday...PAC is actually more the Patriots that he is consistent,,Hes been imposing his will consistently for the last few years...just like Tiger
my hunch is that maybe he is very SKILLFUL that way...and the meaning may have been distorted quite a bit by some people here...

I dare say that skills is in the eye of the beholder...

Like you made Valero an example..people say hes not skilled..then if he isnt no need to argue, he wont go far..But if he does clean out 135..whats to say??

 

You don't think that personal likings can influence one's ranking? Seriously...

For illustration, let's modify the question: Workrate is overrated on ESB, etc...

Some fans here rank Margarito a top 30 P4P, some push it as high as top #10 though his accomplishments in the ring don't justify such high rankings. Why? Other than stamina and size, the standard justification always include his workrate.

To the said fans, boxers with high workrates are perceived as "better" no matter what their track records show.

Same story, except I've replaced skill sets by workrate.

 

I'd say with boxing in general. People tend to be wowed by great talents and the skills that are flashier- things like handspeed and punching power.

 

And isn't it a skill when despite your limitations you manage to make your opponents play into your strengths? I think we're too much caught up the clique "Boxing is sweet science." thing. It's more an art. Science implies formulas, art is more unto creativity.

 

Kind of deviating from the main point of this thread. But The beauty about boxing is that kind of an opposite scenario that we're discussing in this thread can also happen.

What happens when a fighter moves up in weight so much that eventually the intangibles are extremely against the "skill set fighter"?

Now the underdog is the skilled fighter and an unaccomplished/uneffective "big man" is favored to win the fight. In this case, Skill set Can't be over rated, because it gets to the point where only a decent skill set can win the fight.

 

Actually no PAC has both in abundance and he doesnt get the raves that a Mijares, Guzman and Gamboa gets.

 

It does influence peoples rankings, I'm not saying that it doesn't. But it clearly SHOULDN'T lol

 

Very true... Skillsets can help transcend any other obstacle. And at the same time they win you fans. Effectiveness is for the unheralded but good fighters in this game. Glen Johnson comes to mind.

 

Okay, I haven't noticed it, but if it is so, then I agree:rofl.

I do think that skillsets and effecientcy is very often linked, and that people acknowledges this. IE PBFs evasiveness, which is caused by his skills, and is very efficient in terms of defense and throwing your opponent off balance.

However not beautiful, Pavlik has a skillset that supports his efficientcy; high workrate, and corkscrew punches that very often hit from all angles, when he doesn't become sloppy, combined with great power.

But I can see what you are saying, and you could be right that people just look at people crudeness, and therefore ignores their effectiveness - ie Margarito.

 

Again the main point of this thread is that fans should not rank/rate fighters high just because they like or think or feel or imagine that a fighter is great and they're awesomely skilled even if it were to be true 100%


The point is that fighters have to be ranked off accomplishment and to the degree to which they win their fights.

Heres a thought.....Pacquiao won every round against David Diaz and KO'd him in the 9th round never came near to losing a round.

If Guzman fought David Diaz and won every round without ever coming close to losing a round, landed just as many punches but Didn't KO Diaz.

But wait Guzman has the better skill set yet...Each victory was just about the same...and even the "lesser skilled" fighter KO'd the guy?

Even if Guzman fought Diaz and KO'd him in the 9th as well without losing any rounds. Where does the rating go with that? Do you say Guzman was more impressive because he was more slick? See thats where this whole deal with skill set gets stupid.

 

It shouldn't to some extent. Judging boxers performance is not exact science - win/lost records are not the exact measure of boxer's merits, that's a truism.

To cite Valero's example, one might object that his opposition was garbage hence his 24-0 record doesn't reflect his true worth (or is open to interpretation).

 

This can work the other way too. Look at Chad Dawson, a superrbly skilled fighter, however, he is not all that highly rated here. A lot of boxing fans just need a reason to hate on someone, so they will use perceived lack of skills or lack of toughness or questionable chin as a justification for their hating behaviour.

 

very true observation acb.

 

Nah nah ..its not random like that at all..There is a pattern/Trend here where the same fighters keep popping out as the ones with the superior skills..