Styles makes fights: Let's weigh in on this with our expertize.

Marciano is the most mis-categorized fighter of all time.

Ask Bert Sugar, and Marciano had bottomless stamina, cut all the time, was always on the verge of losing, knocked guys out in the lick of time,was screwing Dorothy Daindridge when he was 15, etc.

Marciano was an undersized,overpowered,conservative puncher who emphasized an unorthodox defence augmented on solid physical conditioning who could, at a moments notice,go into seek-and-destroy mode.

He was a relentless finisher rather than a relentless brawler. He really only opened up when he had his man going and the Charles Rematch is an anomaly around which so much BS is based.

Watch the fights, Marciano employed cunning and feints and a crouch, husbanded his shots very well and only started windmilling once he had the guy trapped, or hurt, or usually both.

 

Trinidad?

 

Trinidad is a sloppy boxer-puncher with an emphasis on punching.

 

Right. Does his emphasis on punching qualify him as a puncher-boxer (as opposed to a boxer-puncher)? I don't think he is sloppy. Maybe at middleweight he became sloppy. But at 154, I always thought he was well orchestrated.

 

Just as an exercise you could model things along two continuums - one the continuum going left to right between low and high volume in punch output, and the other going down to up between guys who tend to move (or more broadly who tend to occupy the outside of the ring) vs guys who apply pressure (or who tend to occupy centre ring). That gives you 4 quadrants with guys like pacquiao, robinson, calzaghe and ali in the bottom right, frazier, chavez, armstrong in the top right, trinidad, foreman, tua top left, and guys like roy Jones, hamed, late career mayweather (and I would argue toney), in the bottom left, all uniquely situated along the two axis', some closer than other to the centre. Some guys are versatile enough to adjust from fight to fight.

if you knew how to you could possibly visualize a 3d model using 3 continuums with a guys dependence on power vs superior punch stats charted.

 

Boxer Punchers fall into two sub categories:

Boxers who can Punch (Lennox Lewis)
Punchers who can box (Hearns)

That distinction is important when considering matchups

 

Don't agree with those two examples. Hearns was more of a boxer than Lewis. The power is what elevated both to another level, but Lennox wouldn't have achieved as much without it.

 

Hearns may have been a better boxer....but Hearns was more puncher than he was boxer...and Lennox was more boxer than he was puncher. It's about the styles and mentalities of teh fighters. Lennox came into the ring to box...if the knockout came, it came, but he came to outbox. Hearns came to knock a guy the fuck out. He only relied on the boxing if the knockout wasn't coming.

Puncher's mentality vs Boxer's mentality.

 

You can't barge the Farage, nor muck about with Tommy C,.. but I didn't mind a portion of the centre-right candidate for oo-cran, 'knock out corruption' or whatever. He was an agent of useful intelligence when it came to individuals correctly furious at the style of his brother, receiving a replicant dose from passing cars..............:crafty:

 

It's more about competition. Lewis would've got crushed facing a prime leonard or a top heavyweight the equivalent of an aging but still formidable hagler

 

Mentality aside Hearns was a better boxer than lewis

 

Agreed, but the mentality makes a big difference to the way the fights go. Hearns put himself in more danger than Lewis did because he (hearns) was more focused on getting the KO. Lennox wouldn't have lost the Barkley for example and wouldn't have broke his hand and run out of gas trying to knockout Hagler.

 

His loss to McCall was Barkley-Hearns-Esque.

Never should have lost to that guy.

 

fair enough

 

When Lewis got sparked by Rahman, it was poor preparation and stupidity rather than a stylistic flaw per se.

 

Yep, that's why Rahman drank the blood of lamb from bandy's tract that night.