What do you consider more skilled, offensive fighters or defensive fighters?

I prefer an offensive fighter (much more excitng), but don't think there's a real skill difference.

It's not like football (or soccer if you're American), where it's easier to defend than attack... Very hard to answer.

 

- I'm not sure about more skills being defensive or offensive.

- I think defensive fighters rely more on their intelligence.

- But for that cleverness to show you have to be a Bernard Hopkins or Floyd Mayweathers of this world - really good at avoiding getting hit. It's almost like they have learned how to avoid getting hit.

- I know you don't mention Pernell Whittaker, but IMO his defence was relying on a natural gift (his amazing reflexes). The same was true for Roy Jones - who just relied on his amazing natural reflexes - which deteriorates as you get past the 30 years mark.

 

whoever has more skills overall (offense + defense) is the more skilled fighter.

 

Duran, despite his offence, was a very clever fighter and had a very good defence as he came in. It's hard to answer. The most skilful fighters will be masters of both IMO.

 

this

 

The thing is Duran, RJJ(prime), and I guess Gomez(debatable) all had great defense too. Defense helps you set your offense and sometimes offense can prevent your opponent from throwing. Both are important but I can't possibly say one is more skilled than the other. Benitez, Toney, Hopkins, and Floyd all are known for defense but are brilliant counterpunchers and once Hopkins & Floyd were very offensive though they still had the defense. I haven't seen much of Locche so I can't say much on him.

 

Just from personal experience it's much easier to throw punches than to avoid them

 

:goodSame here. Still, both offensive & defensive fighters are skilled and imo fighters need some of both.

 

Hard one to answer. Offense is amazing too. In a way, effective offense is a defense unto itself.

I personally just find defensive counter punching aesthetically pleasing. Something about the guy in there calmly dismantling a raging opponent.

 

Between apples and oranges, I think apples taste more like grapes.

(The concept itself is way too generalized. You can't really quantify more skill between offensive styles and defensive styles either way.)

 

Exactly, i think defensive fighters are more skilled.

 

Defensive.

 

the fighters listed most definetly have strenghts in one or the other, but all possess greatness in both. you cant win a fight if you hit and get hit as often, or dont get hit, but dont punch.

i see what youre saying, and you make a good thread, i just think labeling a fighter as one or the other is misleading. pac may be a great offensive fighter, but i also think he is the top 5 defensive figthers around also. he dosent, slip or block as well as floyd obciously , but he is able to move his feet in and out of range while getting his own, which is amazing considering the reach disadvatage his is constantly at. same thing with roy jones, who before he got old, had amazing defensive reflexes, he was one of the hardest dudes to hit.

even the most extreme example of a great offensive force, mike tyson, was a tremendouse bobber and weaver. what makes these fighters so great at offence is often their ability to transition to defence and offence seamlessly. no great offensive figher simply mows forward and hits and tries to just bludgen their man, with an array of punches and is successful - the ony example i can think of is perhasp triindad.

so all in all, an interesting question- but i just think its the wrong question to be asking. and over simplified for a sport , that is far more complex, and too simple for true thinkng boxing fans.

 

if done properly a great offense can be good defensively.