Who wins in this scenario; Fighter A is a classy fighter and likes to avoid leather only throwing on the counter but landing everytime using speed and reflexes to his advantage. Fighter B is a brawler, throws loads of leather and likes to drag his opponent into a war. Throwing many landing few. In a fight against each other - Fighter A throws few but his punches land and land with accuracy. he avoids being dragged into a brawl and only often does he stand and exchange using his reflexes to avoid the leather of Fighter B. Fighter B tries to cut off the ring and struggles with Fighter A's ability. He throws often and lands few and rarely succeeds in dragging an exchange out of Fighter A. Who wins after 12 rounds?
Depends if the judges are marking on aggression. Ive seen many bouts played out as you described, with the 'brawler' picking up a close split decision. I personally like to see the boxer who consistently lands the cleaner blows during a round to, well pick up the round.
Depends who's landing the more effective punches, and how many of them. Example A: The Clottey-Corrales fight was arguably a bit like this, and Clottey won because while Corrales was throwing a lot he wasn't landing much, whereas Clottey was catching him almost at-will on the counter, and over the course of the fight beat him up. Mayweather-Judah was similar, although Judah probably picked the wrong strategy in that fight. Example B: Pacquiao vs. any of a handful of opponents. Pacquiao usually out-hits and out-swarms the other guy, even if the other guy is trying to operate on the counter. He lands more effective punches, does more damage, looks more dynamic, and wins. I'm interested in what happens when he comes up against somebody who's just as good at countering as he is at swarming (aren't we all?). The two Marquez fights were the closest we've come to this and they both gave each other real trouble. So, the way you've phrased the question doesn't really help, as it depends exactly how much of each is going on with each fighter.
I'm referring more to the Froch/Dirrell fight and even the Valuev/Haye fight where we have both examples winning
Aggressive gets rated too often above defense because it's more eye-catching. Doesn't matter whether it's effective or not in comparison to the other guys defense, sometimes people just score for aggression alone.
It's a stupid question. You're not factoring in a whole host of things. It's never as simple as a counter puncher vs a swarmer. There are so many intangibles to be seen in different fighters. You can't lump them all into fighter 'A' and fighter 'B' because there is a huge grey area between the two styles.
Fighter A wins because he is : landing more punches = effective agression and clean punches landed imposing his style on fighter B and making fighter B miss = ring generalship and good defense
