Which style is harder to beat: Pure boxers (Out-fighters) or Swarmers (In-fighters)

Historically speaking which style has always been the more difficult style for fighters to deal with? Fighters that are out of reach and constantly moving or fighters that are in your face and punching non stop?

 

It 100% comes down to the quality of the fighter rather than the style. If you're a swarmer with the incredible talent of a Pryor, Fenech, or Harada in their primes, you're hard to beat. If you're a pure boxer with the talent of a Floyd, Whitaker, or Canto, you're hard to beat. It comes down to the man, not the style.

Although, I'd say history is filled with more great pure boxers than great swarmers. It's truly a unique gift to be great at the latter.

 

That's true of any sport, forget boxing. Talent level supercedes style.

In baseball, Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez were different style of pitchers (Maddux bamboozled hitters, while Martinez overwhelmed them). They were the two best pitchers I've ever seen in MY lifetime. I couldn't tell you which was harder to beat in their primes.

 

It’s not the style, it’s the practitioner.

 

They're different kinds of hard. A good pure boxer would leave you frustrated and would slowly destroy your confidence and whatever idea you had of your ability, with some pain afterwards, but nothing too drastic. A good swarmer would make you feel absolutely helpless and with no control over the fight, you'd just be a passive observer to your own beating, and the pain could even last for days afterwards. The former makes you regret picking up the sport, the latter makes you regret being born. I'm going with swarmer.

 

It will also come down to who they're facing. I don't know anything about baseball but i'm sure some guys would find Martinez harder to bat against and other would struggle more against Maddux.

Similar in boxing. Since Pryor and Mayweather were mentioned somebody like Kostya Tszyu would likely rather face Floyd. Not that he'd beat either but that would be his preference. Other fighters would find facing Floyd too frustrating and would rather take on the Hawk win or lose.

 

This is all true.

 

According to experts, the Andrade vs. Benavidez matchup was expected to be a 50/50 fight. Andrade was advertised as having a highly skilled southpaw style with sweet hands and angles. And David was considered a slow-footed plodder. However, compubox stats revealed that David effectively blocked most of Andrade's punches, despite his awkward appearance. This challenges the tendency to overrate slick boxers, emphasizing that a boxer's effectiveness goes beyond style. Like ex said quality of individual vs style is more important.

 

The appearance of slickness is also deceiving.

For example, Chavez was the one coming forward all night but he was the one outboxing Camacho who was the mover/runner all night.

 

Starting to notice a trend that you're a pathological liar.

What fucking experts called it 50-50? Benavidez was a big favorite.

 

Pretty much yeah. You always have to be a defense first type of fighter before the label "slick" is applied. You don't have to a Chavez, any boxer that tends to press the action and open up is going to get hit more regardless of how skilled they are defensively.

I'm not saying it's easy to pull off or that they would be as effective utilizing a more defensive oriented approach, but a lot of top tier fighters would get hit less if that was their primary focus.

 

I think judges give "slick boxers" too much credit. Some just have a hardon for making fighters miss but despite announcers' obsession with them, percentages don't mean shit.

 

Just as Some Are Enamored with "Aggression", No Matter How EFFECTIVE It Is, or in Most Cases ISN'T...

Just as Some Are Enamored with "Aggression", No Matter How EFFECTIVE It Is, or in Most Cases ISN'T...



REED

 

***NEWSFLASH***

"Making Fighters Miss" MATTERS; It's Called DEFENSE, Which is Part of the Criteria for SCORING a Round/Boxing Match, Last Time REED Checked...It's FUNNY Seeing the Usual Suspects Project Their Stylistic PREFERENCE Upon Clearly Established RULES ...Sorry, But When Your Favorite FACE 1st Plodder Du Jour ISN'T Landing CLEAN Punches and Isn't EFFECTIVELY Aggressive, Defense HAS to Accounted For/Tabulated...

That's Why You're Forced to Settle for MORAL Ass Victories ("I Was Moving Forward the Whole Time", "He RAN", "He Never HURT Me", Blah, Blah, Blah) More Times Than Not...




REED

 

agREED...

And REED Hates FAUX-Slickness as Much as ANYBODY...To REED, "Slickness" is the Ability to Make Your Opponent Miss AND Make Him Pay...Not JUST Making Him Miss, Exclusively...In His PRIME, Pernell Whittaker was the Textbook "Slick" Fighter; He Made You MISS (Flat Footed and/or IN the Pocket Faaaaaaaaaaaaaar More Than He's Given Credit for By His Critics) AND He Made You PAY...

agREED On "Slickness" Being Deceiving....




REED

 

Apparently Shakur missed out on studying the second aspect of Pea's genius, where he makes em pay.

 

He Certainly Did vs De los Santos, But Let's NOT Pretend That's the NORM for Shakur...Nakathila, Herring, Valdez, Conceicao and Yoshino ALL Paid for Their Misses, In Consecutive Fights...




REED

 

I was half joking. I haven't written the kid off yet.

 

But when you have scenarios like Stevenson vs Santos where neither guy is really doing anything it's obvious the slick south paws get bonus points for being cute. There's rarely ever stale mates in boxing. I think a draw would have been fair in that fight.

 

No, What's "Obvious" is the Judges Adhered to the Loooooooooong ESTABLISHED Rules of the 10-Point Must System...



What's the 3rd Bullet Point On That List???....

In the ABSENCE of "Effective Aggression", Apparent "Ring Generalship" or "Clean Punches", a Judge Really Has NO Recourse BUT to Weigh DEFENSE Heavier...You're Simply Projecting YOUR Stylistic PREFERENCE and DISLIKE For Shakur Stevenson, No More, No Less...Fans Are CLOWNING Shakur for Only Landing 46 Punches in 12 Full Rounds, Yet NOBODY Says Shit About the Fact De los Santos Landed 20 FEWER Shots Than Shakur Did!!!...

To Be CLEAR, This was the WORST Shakur Stevenson Fight REED's Ever Seen...Soooo Bad, REED WILL NOT Rewatch it Again, Ever...But as BORING as it Was, as DISAPPOINTING As the "Performance" Was, Shakur WON the Fight...Clearly, You're Caught Up in Wanting to PUNISH Shakur, So You're Saying a Draw Would've Been the Fairest Verdict....

But the 10-Point Must System Disagrees w/You...Vehemently, REED Might Add...




REED

 

Shakur said the criticism is fair because he talks so much shit. Damn right.

 

I have a solution to this question. A swarmer is harder to beat.

The difference is that the best of pure boxers may lose questionable decisions more easily. Whitaker boxed masterfully against Oscar, but his style gave judges a legit chance to give it for Oscar, although many scored it for Pernell.

It is more difficult to see a great swarmer losing a similar debatable decision. Boxer can be punished for being passive, but swarmers are not usually punished for missing punches