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

Kessler has a text book jab cross. His infighting ability though, and overall range of punches is far from text book. As is his combination punching and defense at times.

IMO Marquez (both) Barrera and even Cotto are better textbook fighters than Kessler, as they possess the more complete skill sets.

Kessler is not well rounded enough to be considered a text book fighter overall.

 

Cotto is a perfect example of textbook, as is JMM more so than Rafael. I think Kessler has a better skillset than Rafa, but not JMM, JMM has more punches in his arsenal.

But, Kessler also may be better at keeping distance than JMM, who's been brought into issue with some B level fighters at certain times, maybe not, something to explore though.

But the majority of his offensive work is textbook, many of his punches perfect and sharp, in balance and lacking any sloppyness what so ever, as compared to the sloppyness and balance issue's that Pavlik brings.

 

Totally agree, although i see people argue all the time that he didn't have skill, which is why i brought it up. As you said though, those who can't see that need to definitely re-evaluate.

He is one dimensional yes, but so is Kessler, so is Manny Pac, so is Juan Diaz, Winky Wright, Wlad Klit etc etc...

One dimensional doesn't always indicate being a bad fighter. It just means that they may be susceptible to losing badly against the wrong style of fighter. Pav v Kessler being an example of this IMO.

Pavlik has impressed me with his timing, pressure, heart and workrate. These things make him a top level fighter. He will still match up poorly to certain styles, but regardless of this, for the most part he is a very effective one dimension

Pac also possesses an unorthadox offensive technique, which makes him so devestating when coming forward. The way he commits to his punches is very similar to Kostya Tszyu (particularly when looking at his left compared to KT's right). The thing that disguises it is the fact he can throw a 5 punch combination of hard straight punches, whilst using such explosive movement coming forward. Even with great counter punchers like MAB and JMM, it has proven to be extremely hard to defend against, and to predict or see the punches.

Most times i think JMM was moving his head in anticipation of the punches coming. I think Pac's punches would be extremely hard to see, as shown by JMM in the first couple rounds of their first encounter, which is why MAB had so much trouble trying to counter punch him.

Anyway, getting off track. I agree with the last part of your post, and most of it overall. I rate Pavlik higher than you though, although i share your thoughts regarding the Kessler fight.

 

One thing MSTR, Kessler can in-fight well, pressure well behind the jab and fight very well circling and off the backfoot in counter mode.... perhaps he's not entirely multi-dimensional, but Pavlik can only fight effectively at the WC level with his normal workrate/pressure routine behind the jab, we've seen Kessler do multiple things.

He tried multiple things vs. Calzaghe even, just couldn't figure him out, much different than Pavlik and Juan Diaz(although Juan's 1 dimension is better P4P IMO than Pavlik's, but thats another discussion).

But, people always think us that often use skillsets as a mark are only meaning boxer types.... Cotto's highly skilled and multi-dimensional, textbook, quick, fluid and precise, he is in the zone where you have a near 'complete fighter' that many post and seek and in a style opposite of the typical fast smooth boxer type.

 

Because having good skill-sets will give you constant results thus making it the optional choice of the majority. It is the safest way of comparing fighters H2H, because it is predictable in a way, like you wont expect a stupid move from textbook fighters. But there are exceptions to the rule and these fighters are favored by those who prefer excitement, due to the unpredictability of a fight.
Therefore, Overrating the former (majority) and underrating the latter (minority). Both does not guarantee a win. But reason will tell you that textbook fighters will most likely get positive results.

 

Agree with all this. One dimensional is probably a bit harsh to describe kessler. I guess in comparison to other top level fighters though, is more the context i was looking for. Pac can fight inside, has shown an ability to counter punch when pressured and use movement, although overall i would still consider Pac to be largely one dimensional at a top level. Similar situation for kessler, although i was impressed by his infighting ability vs JC. Not so much with his lateral movement though, particualrly vs Andrade as he backed straight up far too often.

Agree with the point you are making. He is not as one dimensional as Pavlik. If Pavlik is getting beaten with Plan a, he is pretty much stuffed. At least Kess can change from a counter puncher to providing pressure, or to maybe trading or fighting more on the inside. Although i don't think he would do the latter that effectively against a top level fighter.

Excellent point. Skill set can be a variety of things, not always a counter puncher as is generally assumed, or a slick boxer. Duran and Chavez are great examples of this. Guys that had excellent skill sets, albiet much different ones ot the Whitakers and Leonards of the boxing world. Something many here probably don't always see.

 

Fighters that can't rely on swift hand speed or a bone breaking punch must obtain a good skillset to make themselves effective.

Its not one thing or the other that determines the winners, boxing is a combination of things.

 

Barrera and Cotto are SERIOUSLY all around text book offensive punchers. :good

 

Pac hasn't shown much ability at all to counter punch and use movement in a sticky situation, people are pointing at Barrera 2, that's not valid, Barrera used foot movement and positioning control, as well as experience in defence to drop the workrate down to nothing, but lacked the timing at that point to make Pac pay for being wide open. Pac was forced to swarm less, but was non-the less still coming right at him and outworking him with hard timed shots from the mid-range as usual.

When he's put in a bad position, he simply brings plan A at a more frantic pace, which is sometimes more precise and effective in a rageful form, making him very effective again... but he's terrible backing up and is not a good inside fighter at all.

Kessler isn't a master inside fighter, but a very good one and he's got more capabilities than Pac in terms of switching things up... though, I am not saying that he's better or more effective than Pac, I know some moron on here would suggest such.

Well, that's possible, but everytime Kessler has been able to control the pace, he has not just won, he has dominated in near-flawless fashion, this is my argument with the Pavlik fans, Pavlik gets into give and takes with almost every level of fighter recently, Kessler's lost to 1 A+ level fighter who was able to control pace as a master at disrupting other fighters styles... nobody else around the weight has that awkward ability.

Could be that Kessler wouldn't do the latter against a fighter with HOF or ATG level ability, but against 'top fighters', meaning your legitimate very good top 5 type guys, he's pulverised the ones he has faced with a lot of things... so... we'll see.

Exactly. My favourite fighters are always well schooled, top ability, having some kind of special feature(Cotto for precision and timing is extremely special)and people criticise such saying 'you only follow the best fighters etc.'... I follow who I like and most of the time I like the pinnacle of what we have in styles that personally appeal to me, but I also know good information about almost every mid-level and higher in every division from watching so much boxing on networks outside of the big ones, I often tune in to the small spanish station cards.

The criticism of Pavlik and similiar from me is because they get massively overrated, while many amazing fighters get criticised by the majority without the majority even know what they are talking about.

They are quick to label Pavlik as something amazing, yet 3 years ago most were down on Cotto, thinking he was just another 'Gatti', yet I was laughing and telling them at the time that he was something very special and top P4P level in potential.

 

Sorry, I'd just consider the top 15 to be 'decent, good to top tier', with the word 'elite' really meaning the best in the sport. Often times gate keepers are in the top 15 in certain divisions.

I give credit to fighters of all level, wins of all level depending on how they are won, you misunderstand. A fighter like Miranda is a 'solid fighter', a guy win for a guy if you blow him out, but an elite fighter? Hell no.

Taylor however, can be classified as an elite fighter, though I'd disagree.

Because against better competition that he's had oppurtunity to fight, they naturally bring more heat and you need more tools and intangibles to defeat them. He's shown vulnerability to limited competition, these vulnerabilities can't be ignored in analysis just for the hell of it because he's been effective so far, while showing serious vulnerability for 'p4p level' as he's rated and endorsed.

And what does that have to do with analysing to the very detail by what he's shown in the actual fights? Why turn a blind eye, because 'he's never lost'.

Because the best fighter he's defeated is also a sloppy, poise lacking fighter despite having great physical gifts and Pavlik has yet to face a top level fighter whom he doesn't have a stylistic edge on, no plan B for Pavlik, we'll see what happens.

You'd as soon assume that he hasn't tasted defeat, so it's all good and we'll accept him as a true elite P4P because all divisions are equal in talent?

Effectiveness is the most important, when have I said it's not? Most of the time however, it takes multi-dimension ability and serious skills or intangibles to be 'effective' at the top level for a good period of time, Pavlik won't.

Floyd's fear of Cotto was not real 'fear' per say, but him not wanting anymore true challenges at that point due to most likely multiple reasons, it was actually good that he bowed out instead of facing Hoya for the big payday and embarassing the sport thereafter.

Calzaghe has defeated much better fighters than Pavlik and stylistically loves guys that come right at him, as he is the master at using pressure against another fighter inside and mid-range, why would he fear someone that is tailor made for him?

He stopped the prospect of Pavlik once Pavlik-Lockett drew flies and obviously just wants a payday like the rest for his last bout. I don't approve of this, again, not at all, I'd have loved to see Calzaghe wipe out yet another undefeated young fighter and call it a day.

I hate work, outside of singing at a club for meager pay, I work manual labor and have done a load lately, I'm physically worn out and I'm enjoying a few days off.

 

Is there an abstract of this discussion? This one's longer than the Chomsky/Piaget debate on language acquisition!

 

It's much better than the **** lately. If most of the regular posters seek to talk about real stuff, it solves the issue's of repetitive threads and trolls being a problem, seems posters can't ignore that, I always have. How hard is it not to respond to ridiculous material?