Stylistic Preference

Thought I'd get the ball rolling - seems rather quiet today. Spent most of last night watching fights of yesteryear with my mates and realised how much style influences an individuals favourites.

My own personally is a rough and ready brawler with subtle defensive skill. I've made the point several times that Duran and Dempsey had excellent defensive skill that I believe were superior to Tyson/Frazier/Hank bob and weave because of conservation of energy, less time used and the excellent positions they got themselves into, to counter or to draw fighters in. I watched the Leonard fights and saw how suited Duran was to the fight, he cut down the speed advantage Leonard had over him with subtle movements and landed well - even in the second fight prior to that mad moment. With the bob and weave - I refer to the Dick tiger/Henry Hank fight - I saw so many counter opportunities wasted because of the position the fight was left in after bobbing/weaving out of the way - either too low - or the balance was shifted to the right/left. He could get away with it because he was good enough but it seemed a little unnecessary when you can ride with the punches/let them glance off for a good position. At first glance it seemed that Duran was made for the (in my view) most complete boxer ever yet Duran more than held his own.

What style do you prefer and what is it about that particular style that gives the fighter the edge over other styles? Also would be helpful if you could give examples of which fights you are basing this on.

Shah

Fascinating subject this one, Shah.

I love to watch the sheer economy of a man like Jofre or Benny Leonard.

If we watch the Jofre v Medal fight, ( the Los Angeles one - I believe it was the second of their two fights, though I can't be bothered to check, ) we see Jofre do everything from subtle and beautiful boxing to engaging in all out brawling. Above all, ( and I've commented on this elsewhere, ) he accomplishes it all as though he has all the time in the world. Perfect judgement of distance and timing afford him the opportunity to go through an entire repertoire from boxing from the outside, scrapping it out like Henry Armstrong, turning defence into offence in a split second and wonderful infighting with short, punishing hooks which remind me of a miniature Dempsey.

Sometimes I really do believe that Jofre is the most complete fighter I have ever seen. Certainly, were I to compile a ' Desert Island Disc ' of my favourite fights, his performance in the Medal fight would be right there at the top of the list. Everything, stylistically, in one fight and one fighter.

HumanWindmill wrote:Fascinating subject this one, Shah.

I love to watch the sheer economy of a man like Jofre or Benny Leonard.

If we watch the Jofre v Medal fight, ( the Los Angeles one - I believe it was the second of their two fights, though I can't be bothered to check, ) we see Jofre do everything from subtle and beautiful boxing to engaging in all out brawling. Above all, ( and I've commented on this elsewhere, ) he accomplishes it all as though he has all the time in the world. Perfect judgement of distance and timing afford him the opportunity to go through an entire repertoire from boxing from the outside, scrapping it out like Henry Armstrong, turning defence into offence in a split second and wonderful infighting with short, punishing hooks which remind me of a miniature Dempsey.

Sometimes I really do believe that Jofre is the most complete fighter I have ever seen. Certainly, were I to compile a ' Desert Island Disc ' of my favourite fights, his performance in the Medal fight would be right there at the top of the list. Everything, stylistically, in one fight and one fighter.

Funny you should mention that - I'm watching it now! its the first fight or the youtube title suggests so. I can't get enough of the footwork - he doesn't spend more than a moment out of position. From what i've seen so far - about halfway through - he seems to throw the jab in between the foot movements - when his feet are moving the opponent backs off to avoid the jab - therefore unable to take advantage of the vulnerable moments.

Absolutely brilliant wasn't he, Shah?

Glad you're enjoying that one as much as I do.

Bloody hell - he's moving his defense before some of the punches are thrown. He's not fighting - he's reading a book

ShahenshahG wrote:Bloody hell - he's moving his defense before some of the punches are thrown. He's not fighting - he's reading a book

Bingo!

I've grappled with finding a metaphor or analogy for his boxing style and you've nailed it with this one. So much time to get his work done and with no fuss whatever. Exactly as you say ; as though he were reading a book.

Much like Windy says, I love sluggers, stubborn defenders and buzzaw swarmers, but there's nothing better than watching an all-rounder in full flow, a real technician. Jofre is, of course, an outstanding candidate in that respect.

Arguello is another big favourite of mine. Brilliant in just about every singe aspect. The definition of everything a true boxer should be, in my eyes.

With regards to Arguello - what aspect of his varying style do you think enabled him to land such clean, crisp punches - especially since he lacked slightly in the footwork area?

tended to like my fighters to be smooth slicksters who could dig when they needed to... benitez would be a good example. But since my favourite fighters of the 80's were pryor and nelson i'm pragmatic about it!

Agree about duran... often gets the bar room brawler, phone booth fighter tag, but he was a brilliant all round fighter and superb defensively... with the possible exception of the hearns fight where he was of course, rolled like a drunk.

milkyboy wrote:tended to like my fighters to be smooth slicksters who could dig when they needed to... benitez would be a good example. But since my favourite fighters of the 80's were pryor and nelson i'm pragmatic about it!

Agree about duran... often gets the bar room brawler, phone booth fighter tag, but he was a brilliant all round fighter and superb defensively... with the possible exception of the hearns fight where he was of course, rolled like a drunk.

Just too big I think and Duran fought a daft fight, but he was never going to beat Hearns. That is an intriguing point, - to what point do you reckon the adage styles make fights stands in the face of physical inferiority? Certain styles give some fighters fits but did Pryors size and strength defeat Arguello more than anything else?

Hows the milkybar kid btw?

I am willing to except that Duran is an ATG offensive fighter but defence??? I don't think so Duran had really no clue as to defend attacks, he was terrible at working the pocket and would take 3 or 4 to land a big punch. All round fighter does not describe Duran he was good at what he did which was wild and hopeful with no real direction but it worked.

ShahenshahG wrote:With regards to Arguello - what aspect of his varying style do you think enabled him to land such clean, crisp punches - especially since he lacked slightly in the footwork area?

Arguello for me didn't have great footwork but still seemed to move his opponents into position it was uncanny the way he used to do it,watching him fight I alway's remarked on how he never wasted a punch,and alway's seemed to be thinking before he unloaded, great offensive fighter but tremendous counter puncher as well.

This is an interesting article.

I think styles depend on age. When I was younger I much liked the Roy Jones Jnr style of fighting as you could maximise abilities like speed and power. Speed because you could pot shot which meant you never wasted much and power because being economical you could carry your power into the later rounds.

Now at my age I find myself adopting the Monzon style. Upright not much movement and just dealing with everything that comes my way. Conserving energy .is the name of the game at my age so I find myself countering guys and blocking with my arms a lot more.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:This is an interesting article.

I think styles depend on age. When I was younger I much liked the Roy Jones Jnr style of fighting as you could maximise abilities like speed and power. Speed because you could pot shot which meant you never wasted much and power because being economical you could carry your power into the later rounds.

Now at my age I find myself adopting the Monzon style. Upright not much movement and just dealing with everything that comes my way. Conserving energy .is the name of the game at my age so I find myself countering guys and blocking with my arms a lot more.

To be honest Roy Jones is like Hamed a Naturallly born fighter gifted with sublime speed and reflexes - I don't think it can be taught. Nico - I agree - its why I wanted an explanation as to why or how he managed it.

ShahenshahG wrote:

milkyboy wrote:tended to like my fighters to be smooth slicksters who could dig when they needed to... benitez would be a good example. But since my favourite fighters of the 80's were pryor and nelson i'm pragmatic about it!

Agree about duran... often gets the bar room brawler, phone booth fighter tag, but he was a brilliant all round fighter and superb defensively... with the possible exception of the hearns fight where he was of course, rolled like a drunk.

Just too big I think and Duran fought a daft fight, but he was never going to beat Hearns. That is an intriguing point, - to what point do you reckon the adage styles make fights stands in the face of physical inferiority? Certain styles give some fighters fits but did Pryors size and strength defeat Arguello more than anything else?

Hows the milkybar kid btw?

the milkybar kid is strong and tough thanks fella... you still avoiding the night shift?

i think the styles makes fights thing v physical advantages is simply that there's a breaking point, where the size just becomes too much... and that that varies with the styles and the fighters. Hearns was a difficult opponent for anyone, but he just had too much size and reach for duran... that said had he ridden the storm, who knows whether he could have found a way back in... possible but unlikely imo.

Pryor was a smallish light welter, so i'm not sure whether the natural size differential was that significant against arguello despite alexis fighting well above his best weight , but i'm sure it helped to some degree.

onetwo... no-one is suggesting duran was a mayweather or a benitez... more that he subtlely rode slipped and blocked a lot of punches - he didn't lead with his face.

Carlos Monzon, not sure what it is but I love the way he always took his opponents strengths and used it against them, it's one thing to do it with their weaknesses but another with their strengths.

milkyboy wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

milkyboy wrote:tended to like my fighters to be smooth slicksters who could dig when they needed to... benitez would be a good example. But since my favourite fighters of the 80's were pryor and nelson i'm pragmatic about it!

Agree about duran... often gets the bar room brawler, phone booth fighter tag, but he was a brilliant all round fighter and superb defensively... with the possible exception of the hearns fight where he was of course, rolled like a drunk.

Just too big I think and Duran fought a daft fight, but he was never going to beat Hearns. That is an intriguing point, - to what point do you reckon the adage styles make fights stands in the face of physical inferiority? Certain styles give some fighters fits but did Pryors size and strength defeat Arguello more than anything else?

Hows the milkybar kid btw?

the milkybar kid is strong and tough thanks fella... you still avoiding the night shift?

i think the styles makes fights thing v physical advantages is simply that there's a breaking point, where the size just becomes too much... and that that varies with the styles and the fighters. Hearns was a difficult opponent for anyone, but he just had too much size and reach for duran... that said had he ridden the storm, who knows whether he could have found a way back in... possible but unlikely imo.

Pryor was a smallish light welter, so i'm not sure whether the natural size differential was that significant against arguello despite alexis fighting well above his best weight , but i'm sure it helped to some degree.

onetwo... no-one is suggesting duran was a mayweather or a benitez... more that he subtlely rode slipped and blocked a lot of punches - he didn't lead with his face.

Not anymore - My wife was feigning illness yesterday haha - so I thought better of calling her out on her crap acting and decided to take a shift. Little one was an absolute delight -drank two bottles 4 hours apart and didn't require a change till just after my wife woke up.

Onetwo the point is that he took those 3-4 punches but took the sting off them by riding or slipping the punch. So those 4 punches - maybe only one of them landed with any force of note. Its why he isn't punch drunk