Will a good boxer always defeat the brawler?

Leave the specifics out then, look at it like this, a fight where you know one guy is gonna brawl and the other is gonna box, who do you think will win/has the advantages?

 

it completely depends on the individual, for example froch groves , i dont know if i would classify froch as a brawler but if the fight was decided by who could tag each other and avoid being tagged only groves will win most times but when froch lunges in and can take a punch that will not affect him and then give his own punch that will then affect groves he has the advange and proved that

 

I think he's just asking if it is really true that boxers have brawlers number on a historical scale, and most would just say yes to that as it is proven on that scale.

 

Reminds me of the Marvin Hagler vs. Alan Minter fight.

 

right i just read and responded the question, it's all relative , the better athlete is usually considered a boxer so that can be a factor and typically the best were good athletes , but styles are not black and white and there are so many aspects which decide a fight and different qualtites which trouble different people not just boxers beat him brawlers beat him

 

Yeah the fights would still have to be calculated by what you know of the fighter's on a individual and case by case basis but in a general term most people would pick the boxer. Like, I would love for bookies to give me even odds when I know that it is a even level boxer against an even level brawler.

 

Here's a thought experiment -- Go back to the Mayweather vs Hatton bout and swap the brains of them right before the fight. What would that look like?

 

So, you're asking us to take into account the athletic advantage Floyd would still have while taking his ring iq away? Hmm, if that's the question I don't know how to answer that one.

 

I mean spring it on them right before the fight so that Hatton's instinct will still be to apply pressure only in Floyd's body. Floyd would be inclined to box on the outside but with Ricky's stubby little arms. I think Floyd would still win because he's more versatile. He essentially did beat Hatton at his own game:yep.

 

9 out of 10 times better boxer beats better brawler.

 

Right, Hatton would have the athletic advantage but would not make as much use of it, Floyd still wins

 

It depends on each situation and the skills/talent/attributes of each fighter.

Generally, I would take the good boxer over good brawler.

But it's a real simplified way of looking at things. J.C. Chavez was mentioned earlier. He was an outstanding pressure fighter, but could box too. Rocky Lockridge was a good boxer, and Chavez outboxed him with one healthy hand, moving mostly on the backfoot.

Hagler was mentioned earlier, but he was an excellent boxer/puncher who could go to war also.

Shane Mosley fought more like a brawler than a pure boxer. He beat a very good boxer in Oscar De La Hoya (although DLH traded too much and should have been more defensive).

 

You're using brawler too broadly in my opinion. You have Maidana and Foreman both listed as brawlers. However, Foreman really wasn't a brawler. He was a puncher. Maidana is a swarmer. Swarmers generally do much better against boxers than do punchers.

 

It really depends on the boxers involved.