Fighters who make it look easy.

I think a lot of fighters, due to speed, style and temperment, manage to make it look easy, even if it's not. Who falls into this category?

 

Floyd.

He doesn't fight anybody worth a damn and yet he makes it look SOOOO easy in mythcial matchups.

 

::

Was thinking about. PBF generally prefers smaller opponents. Pacquiao, bigger ones. Ironic. Pacquiao you'd think would be small enough for pbf.

 

I think most top fighters make it look pretty easy.

James Toney maybe more so because he was so damn relaxed.

 

Nicolino Locche

you should not be able to dominate guys like that without even a hint of a knockout punch... But he did it, all the time, seeming to giggle all the while

 

First guy that came to my mind.

 

guillermo rigondeaux. had that chap last nite shook worse than sf in nineteen aught six

 

This thread has the prime version of the Pensacola farmer written all over it.

 

Wilfred Benitez (sans the Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Bruce Curry, and past prime fights)

 

I remember Dmitry Salita making it look easy fighting cans.

 

I dont wanna pull a Karl here, but I think a minimum of 5 FB posters could make it look easy if they were fighting the glen kellys of the world.

 

....& the Winner of the "Most INACCURATE & OVERUSED RJ Generalization" Award IS.....





REED:mj:

 

David Price

 

Harold Johnson

 

it's a good point. beyond a fighter's style, there's also the question of opposition. let's assume for the sake of this discussion that competition is not an issue, and that the fighters' in question aren't the type to seek out easy competition and perform at music halls.

 

Glen Kelly TKO Fightbeat, one after the other.

Still, point taken.

Jones Toney, on the other hand...

 

For me, nothing seemed difficult for a prime Pernell Whitaker. It was almost like the guy had a defensive force field protecting him.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't classify his win over Nelson as easy. Nor would I his win over Chavez.

But I can see how the style of certain fighters belies the difficulty actually involved.

 

Toney was the first one I thought of too

 

Yep. And it's funny, because that's the hardest way to fight. Guy was beautiful.

 

It does seem much more natural to southpaws.

 

Yeah for sure. Especially my boy Pea.

 

Why is it the hardest way to fight? In many ways, it's the easiest. Putting defense above all else makes things easier for the following reasons:

1. You get hit less
2. When you do get hit, you're generally braced for it
3. Knock-out punches and those with the power to change fights most often occur when a fighter is on the offense - by choosing in general not to be on the offense, you're eliminating entirely the circumstances in which you'd get caught in the process of doing so.

Among other reasons, these are reasons that fights cannot be won or lost on the basis of defense alone.

Interestingly, by definition, a fighter cannot win a fight on defense alone. However, strictly speaking, a fighter can win on offense alone.

Consider that fighters, by taking a highly defensive approach, will always be at greater risk of losing fights. And so it begs the question - well why would they compromise their chances of winning to fight in a style that many would say is the hardest way to fight? The answer is, it's not the hardest way to fight. In many ways, it's the easiest. Especially when you integrate grappling and other fight-stalling, pace-controling and offense- neutralizing illegal tactics.

 

Not to get all Karl on you - but have you ever boxed? Standing in front of someone and making them miss is much harder than taking punches.

 

I think that's highly debatable. Also, while there's moments of that, depending on the opponent, I'd say that's a highly idealized characterization of what Whitaker, for example, did. If you broke it down, I bet he actually does that for less than 5% of the fight.

 

Have you ever boxed?

 

Yes. And don't get me wrong. My aim isn't to down-play the skill and ability involved in making an opponent miss. Especially when it's done in a sustained fashion and isn't sandwiched between illegal holding and other methods of stalling the action.

The point I'm making is that it's not categorically the case that, "making your opponent miss," considering everything else that that entails, is harder than every alternative.

I submit that in fact a proper integration of offense and defense is the end all and be all, and that everything in between is a compromise meant to compensate for a weakness in some area.

 

Thank you for your answer.