Offence/defence - Who combined the 2 the best?

Not every fighter can mix the 2 with great effect. Not even Mayweather who is an outstanding defensive fighter as we know, Khan seems to struggle with it also but when attacking is effective. In recent memory I can only think of James Toney who combined the 2 properly.

Watch Toney v Barkley for proof.

Tyson probably

Tyson good shout.

Wilfred Benitez.

Lennox Lewis could do both brilliantly, but he coudn't combine the two of them effectively. He either fought defensively or offensively.

Ray Leonard could also box either way.

Benitez is a quality shout

You could even throw Prince Nazeem into it, not a great by any stretch, unconventional but effective against certain opponents both offensively and defensively.

obviously roy jones!

Whitaker combined the two brilliantly, just a shame that his offence didn't carry much weight, he had the speed of hand, foot and thought to switch from defence to attack in an instant.

Duran, defence is very underrated and offensively could bully and hurt much bigger men

Duran could work the pocket as did Toney but Naz and Jones relied on agility not in the same league IMHO.

I agree but people perhaps overlook aggressive fighters and write off their defensive as being nothing more than average just because they aren't 'slick'

Duran could close the distance with any fighter (bar Leonard 2) by slipping past the jab getting on the inside where he could work, that's as close to combining the 2 as you can get

Not discrediting the others but their are other fighters who combine the 2 excluding the obvious ones mentioned

most great fighters combine the two, and I don't really agree that Floyd Mayweather doesn't. Please could you expand on your point a bit? He may not be as agressive as SRL for example, but when lets them go he lands an amazingly high percentage of his shots.

Yes Floyd is acurate but not the aggresser. I know of late he has been taking the fight to his opponent but thats because his legs are not what they used to be.

OK, see where your coming from, and would have to agree that Duran and Tyson would be the first mnames that spring to mind as being fighters that went after their opponents from the off whilst being damn hard to hit at the same time. Ricardo Lopez also deserves a mention as a great allrounder with both great defence and offence, a prime Don Curry too.

Duran had a great defence, he had every trunk and hand defence imaginable. Though his trunk defence could sometimes be a little erratic.

With the risk of over simplifying things, there are two kinds of defence: active and passive.

1) Agressive fighters tend to use the active style: slips and rolls combined with hand and forearm defences always with intention of closing distance to set up an attack. These fighters make you miss to unload (often in flurries), while Tyson was a master defence, make you miss, make you pay, this not considered to be counter punching (which is wierd when you think about).

2) Defensive fighters tend to use the passive style: push aways, side steps, laybacks and hands defences, a few with extraordinary reflexes and agility, combine these elements into something which are beyond description and dont fit into conventional defensive brackets, however in most cases the primary intention is making an opponent miss, if a counter presents its self with seemingly minimal risk they will take it.

Your choice of style is dependant on what you learned as a kid, your physical make-up when growing up an at present (height, reach, agility, reflexes etc), your'e sparring partners while learning to box, your mentalilty and how good your chin etc etc.

Only a few boxers are blessed with the ability to do both styles in equal amounts, the example above: James Toney is one.

Personally I think learning throuigh childhood with multiple sparring partners of different ages is the best way to develop a multitude of styles. From the ages of 11 to 16 some kids go through crazy growing spurts and for the reason have to change there style accordingly. One year they may be tall and rangy, the next they may be short and stout, this is most beneficial to those with natural ability as it makes it necessary to box during competition in alternative way year on year.

For kids this scenario can be manufactured in the gym by careful sparring ( completely different weight, squat against lanky, squat against squater, tall against taller etc etc). This forces kids to try different styles. However, it is artificial, without serious competition.
Therefore, the guy how goes through the natural growth spurts will benefit more than kids sparring (because he can do this kind of sparring plus compete using a different style on a year by year basis).

This learning of styles in the methods described above must be done as children to be most succesfull its the way their brains are geared, much in the same way kids learn new languages better than adults. or simply old dogs new tricks and that.

...writing that wasted 5 minutes of my life sitting and I'm not even sure why i wrote it. I bored myself writing it so there is no way I'm going to re-read it and edit it. Sorry

TheMackemMawler wrote:With the risk of over simplifying things, there are two kinds of defence: active and passive.

1) Agressive fighters tend to use the active style: slips and rolls combined with hand and forearm defences always with intention of closing distance to set up an attack. These fighters make you miss to unload (often in flurries), while Tyson was a master defence, make you miss, make you pay, this not considered to be counter punching (which is wierd when you think about).

2) Defensive fighters tend to use the passive style: push aways, side steps, laybacks and hands defences, a few with extraordinary reflexes and agility, combine these elements into something which are beyond description and dont fit into conventional defensive brackets, however in most cases the primary intention is making an opponent miss, if a counter presents its self with seemingly minimal risk they will take it.

Your choice of style is dependant on what you learned as a kid, your physical make-up when growing up an at present (height, reach, agility, reflexes etc), your'e sparring partners while learning to box, your mentalilty and how good your chin etc etc.

Only a few boxers are blessed with the ability to do both styles in equal amounts, the example above: James Toney is one.

Personally I think learning throuigh childhood with multiple sparring partners of different ages is the best way to develop a multitude of styles. From the ages of 11 to 16 some kids go through crazy growing spurts and for the reason have to change there style accordingly. One year they may be tall and rangy, the next they may be short and stout, this is most beneficial to those with natural ability as it makes it necessary to box during competition in alternative way year on year.

For kids this scenario can be manufactured in the gym by careful sparring ( completely different weight, squat against lanky, squat against squater, tall against taller etc etc). This forces kids to try different styles. However, it is artificial, without serious competition.
Therefore, the guy how goes through the natural growth spurts will benefit more than kids sparring (because he can do this kind of sparring plus compete using a different style on a year by year basis).

This learning of styles in the methods described above must be done as children to be most succesfull its the way their brains are geared, much in the same way kids learn new languages better than adults. or simply old dogs new tricks and that.

...writing that wasted 5 minutes of my life sitting and I'm not even sure why i wrote it. I bored myself writing it so there is no way I'm going to re-read it and edit it. Sorry

No need to apologise I thought it was pretty good.

Barrera, by the time he fought Naz had developed the withering offense on display in the first Morales fight along with top boxing ability and use of range he used on Hamed.

Tyson's Defence..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZzMPsm6c4&feature=fvwrel

hopkins at his best combined both well. age slowed him down a bit though and spent less time on the offensive

Tyson is often overlooked when it comes to defence. A little of the Pernell there.

Hagler or Tyson. Hagler was masterful at slipping and countering. Curry wasn't half bad either. In terms of British fighters I'd say Groves. He's got some incredible ability to move backwards but be offensive.

Audley. He was offensive.