Who wins majority of the time, outside fighter vs inside fighter?

outside. always loved the tall rangy fighters more than the short stocky, muscular fighters that are built like a tank.

 

Different stylistic match ups make boxing interesting...if the inside fighter always beat the out fighter or vice versa than no one would bother watching. Here's the deal outside fighters typically are more flashy and cruise their way to a decision inside fighters are crude and go for KO'S again TYPICALLY SPEAKING there are a number of advantages both men have, the outfighter usually has height,reach,finesse the infighter has power, and better head movement in order to get inside. Speed could go either way though generally speaking goes to outfighters because they dont load up as much but guys like Floyd Patterson and Mike Tyson are the exceptions. The fight starts on the outside so naturally the infighter is at a disadvantage he has to get inside and let off his shots with bad intentions (however the distance is a double edged sword because how is a lengthy fighter supposed to fight on the inside?) The infighter must stay active or the ref will call break and he will have to start all over again which means their work-rate must be higher as the aggressor and to close the distance thats why boxers have more longevity in their careers like larry holmes and ali a guy like frazier,tyson,dempsey marciano has to constantly work and takes more punishment. Frazier pretty convincingly beat Ali in the FOTC but those 15 rounds took so much out of him he was hospitalized because of exhaustion even though he beat ALI up he took more time to recover. Tyson knocked out/beat up tons of outfighters what made his fights so thrilling was he was knocking out guys that were head and shoulders above him Jose Ribalta, Holmes, Ruddock, Bruno, biggs, etc Larry holmes jabbed infighters silly like Shavers, Mercer Norton, and Cooney. If the inside fighter can hurt the outside fighter he will most likely win by stoppage but if he cant reach the outside fighter he will lose a decision GENERALLY

 

Hold on fool, you're AZZking the forum who's better between out and in fighters. We gave you answers, the majority of them saying out is better. Why even bother AZZking a question like this if you truly believe both styles are equal?

Too bad you have no examples, and I'm the only one who cited examples of outfighters getting the better of it.

unfortunately for you, Sugar Ray Robinson is classified by everyone as a boxer, the term for an outfighter, and not a swarmer.

Boxers have an easier time working on the inside than swarmers do on the outside. You too know this as you keep bringing up Whitaker as an example.

 

Outside fighter always has a longer career.

 

What? You don't even know the meaning of "boxer" but pretend to be a hardcore boxing fan:dead

Let's go through your examples without your conveniently selective biased.

Leonard got the better of Duran throughout their trilogy

Ali got the better of Frazier throughout their trilogy

Castillo performed very well but didn't manage to beat Mayweather. He ends up convincingly losing the rematch.

Hopkins and Toney both got thoroughly beat by Roy

Many of your examples fail you. I'll be kind enough to add additional examples.

Robinson won the series with Lamotta.

Dempsey couldn't ever figure out how to beat Tunney. Legendary ATG infighter Harry Greb even went as far as saying Dempsey won't ever be able to beat Tunney.

Let's review this thread.

1) You create the thread because you don't know the answer to what style wins.

2) We give you answers, most saying outfighter.

3)

That answer is too much for you to handle. Why even make the thread if you believe the question can't be answered?

You must know the meaning of "boxing" and "boxer" with your supposed 'boxing experience', outside fighting and outside fighter.

 

your right but for aesthitic purposes. i love watching fighters like that keep opponents on the end of their jab. paul williams can do that all day but he doesn't take advantage of it.

 

The terms are very broad. There are plenty of fighters who can do both, and it says nothing about a fighters skillset. Wlad is an out fighter who will beat most in fighters he faces. He will do so because of his great footwork, outstanding jab, and his power. He's also an intelligent fighter who's great at controlling the distance. On the other hand, Paulie Malignaggi is an out fighter who will lose to a good in fighter. He has little power, and struggles to keep guys from getting inside on him. Once guys do get inside, he's screwed.

It's all about skillset, and who can impose their style.

 

It seems tough for people to evaluate because there have been quite a bit more poor "tough-man" brawler types that try getting on the inside than out-fighters. I would say the out-fighter tends to only have an advantage if he's an equal or superior puncher.

When it comes to a career the boxer will obviously have far greater longevity. That's not to necessarily say it's the better or superior style. You have to fight according to your attributes. Langford, Greb, and Armstrong are all short stout in-fighter types (Langford was more of an aggressive puncher than in-fighter perhaps). Those three guys are locks for being apart of the elite top 4 as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention, even when we bracket in these discussions we must acknowledge that there is no totality of an argument. Many great out-fighters had great in-fighting capabilities (Toney, SRR, etc). As many great in-fighters could also box adequately from a distance if necessary as long as they had sufficient physical dimensions (Duran, Dempsey, etc).