Successful plodders in boxing or good fighters with poor footwork

I agree to a fair extent, I think. I typed that post in a hurry tbh and it came across more nebulously and generically than I intended (though I do still think that the overall amount of criticism that Louis, Arguello and Tiger get for their footwork/footspeed is disproportionate and overstated). Al articulated above a good bit of what I was thinking when he mentioned his dad, so I suppose you could sometimes say that it depends on how much you think a fighter's mentality and the resolve that they have in their own approach, skill set and ring generalship affects things. Can it possibly dictate how they go about things as much as or more than the lack of an alternative approach in their armoury that you were talking about, and if so, is the right thing to do as opposed to doing what your opponent wants?

I think it can, and that examples such as Louis, Tiger and Arguello could come under such classification, but I could also probably agree with people such as yourself who think otherwise and I greatly respect your opinion. It probably sounds like excuse-making, but I'd like to think that I'm objective enough when necessary for it to exist as a feasible train of thought (or at least a grey area that merits debate). But maybe I'm wrong and rambling and talking ****, I dunno.

Take Tiger, for example, and fights against the likes of Griffith, Benvenuti, Giardello and Archer. All excellent/great fighters who had probably mastered their own respective approaches to varying degrees as much as Tiger had his own. He knows that they're not going to stand and trade if they can help it (at least not entirely); that they won't want to fall foul of either his physical strength or his heavy-handed surgeon-like countering ability. So can he force his countering gameplan on them with balanced minimalistic footwork, feinting, economy of motion etc without being too vulnerable? The results say yes and no, partially depending on your opinion of them. I thought he beat Griffith close but clear and that he beat an admittedly lacklustre Benvenuti pretty convincingly when way past his own best. I haven't seen the Archer fight for a very long time, so my judgment may be off on this one, but I recall the decision being a very close one with some other sources apparently agreeing, and that the decision could have gone Tiger's way on another night. Did he really do worse than any of Archer's other opponents who tried different approaches that were more 'fluid' of foot? Or Giardello's?

I'd say not but that's up for debate and depends on what you think of said opponents. I think he stalked them all well from an aggressive counterpuncher's approach anyway and had plenty of success, even if he wasn't as aesthetically fluid as a Panamanian type, and that he did manage to sucker them into his own fight enough of the time despite their best efforts to the contrary. But if people see it differently, that's fair enough I suppose. I also suspect that the 'mininalism' and 'economy of motion' that I mentioned earlier can sometimes make a fighter seem slower or more rigid than what they actually are. Either way, I prefer to use them than 'plodding', even if it's a case of semantics and plodding isn't an insult. I also think that the short, shuffling type of half steps that Louis in particular used were sometimes deceptively sharp and quick, if unflashy.

The opposing response is a fair and obvious one that has plenty of merit: why not just try a Napoleseque or Gomez-like approach if his own tactics and preferred style aren't bringing conclusive results if he has it in him? Or an Armstrong or Duran one? Because he doesn't/can't? At least not to that degree? Yeah, fair enough. My only defence for that is that these are the greatest of the great of any style and not just their own, so any comparison is unfair. Maybe that proves your point tbh. But did Tiger's more troublesome opponents face such styles in their own weightclasses? With the exception of Griffith against Napoles, who was drained, usually not. I'm going to stop rambling on this anyway, I'm losing cohesion of thought.....

I agree with everything else about inconsistency, Toney, Eubank etc. I was hypocritically lazy there.

 

I think a lot of what can make a fighter look plodding is also about their mentality and comfort zones as a fighter.Every bit as much as how fast or good their footwork is.

like if you compare Chavez to Arguello.Julio does have better technical footwork and is a bit quicker on his feet(though by the late 80s and at 140 that gap has been narrowed significantly) but in neither area is there the kind of differences you would think would be the key in illustrating why one does so well against styles the other struggles against.Not for me at least.

It's just the mentality and comfort zone is different for each.Chavez was a natural at being on the front foot and phoneboothing retreating fighters, where Arguello just wanted you to stand in front of him so he could cave your skull in.

 

Yeah, there's some truth to that. I think it sort of presents the other, more flawed side of coin of what I meant when I was on about a fighter having faith in his own methods and style when they clash with an opponent's on the surface.

 

This is a really good point.

 

Toward the latter half of his run, anyway. He could switch between styles pretty seamlessly in his earlier days, and times during his later reign.

 

James Toney, especially as he got older and morphed into Jabba The Counterpuncher.

 

Joe Louis plodded forward

 

what about Ruiz, he managed some good wins on very little to get excited about... hugging & plodding I'd say.

 

There's a bundle of modern fighters in terms of plodders that where very good, not necessarily great though. Corrales, Froch, Pavlik, Margarito to name a few.

 

I think James Braddock fits the bill. His slow-footedness was a big reason for his poor record and accounted for a lot of his losses before he pulled the Baer upset.