What are your biases?

Lets try and be self analytical and honest here. Lets try NOT to shine the light on others but on OURSELVES (at least not to start with ::). What structures your boxing biases....stylistically, personality wise, nationally, ethnically, whatever.

Me personally, I tend to be biased towards guys who
A) are natural fighters who are able to 'handle themselves' even when losing boxing matches. Guys like Duran, Toney, Hopkins, Benitez etc who even when they lose more than 6 rounds hence the fight they tend to finish in fine fettle, sometimes more so than their opponents.

B) Latino fighters and their style full stop. Kinda ties into part one - guys who are about putting on more hurt than the other guy, with the mindset of boxing being a structured FIGHT where the bottom line is busting someone up not thinking about impressing judges. Great body punchers come under this category. Sometimes it doesn't get rewarded on the cards like it should but it sure breaks a guy down. This mindset is declining with 12 rounders and modern amateur boxing, IMO.

C) Guys who move their head as their primary form of defense. Just love this. It's beautiful to look at and it allows more offensive possibilities. I openly admit I'll probably overrate fighters who do this and forgive their other shortcoming just because I love it.

And Im biased AGAINST:

D) Modern amateur style fighters. Pretty much the converse of B), above. Guys who are at some level are primarily about SHOWING they're landing punches and not being hit, above and beyond whether punches are actually hurting anyone. That's not to say that these guys CAN'T hurt anyone, btw, so dont bother posting pictures of Calzaghe or Khan putting guys on their ass, it isn't my point.

E) Reluctant fighters. Guys with a hustling 'why should I?' attitude who take no pride in doing great things beyond protecting their marketability. I hate them and that will cause me to slant against them a little.

F) Guys who just block punches like ear muffs (related to point D). See Abraham, Clottey and to a lesser extent Winky Wright. While Im RIGHT that it just doesn't work as well as actually learning to slip, parry, weave etc effectively I'll readily admit that if asked for an opinion my bias will probably lead me to underrate these fighters a little.

G) Guys who primarily work with 'range'. This is related to D), too. Guys who either can't fight inside well, or struggle to transition to fighting inside well, so who just rely on fast feet to get in and out. Athlete fighters. I actually like a couple fighters who this applies to (Pac & Tyson, IMO), so it's not a make or break bias, but these guys can and never will be my favourites.

In some of these cases I can overcome my biases, in others I just feel too strongly and will always love or denigrate guys no matter what they achieve. An example: whether Amir Khan would beat Niccolino Loche or not (probably not, but regardless) I will NEVER acknowledge Khan as being as good a fighter, even at gun point. Ditto for say Calzaghe and James Toney. I admit it, Im just biased. Anyone else willing to admit theirs?

 

I am usually blatantly biased against fighters who get overrated IMO and who have the most annoying fans. Mike Tyson and Roberto Duran are the prime examples.

Out of fighting styles I hate the clinching, butting, fouling type, Duran again and Holyfield.


Otherwise I think I am objective, but since so many others see it differently, then by normal standards I am biased for modern fighters, Klitshkos and Lennox.

This really is the point. Everybody has a bias, whether they notice it or not. The only way to define if an opinion is biased or not is to compare it to "general view" whatever the fuck that is. That, of course, changes all the time

 

I am biased towards very skillful guys...especially guys with great defense as well as speed. I also appreciate power.

As such....

Ali (Clay)
Tyson
Jones
Hopkins
Mayweather
Calzaghe
Lewis
Leonard
Hearns
Pacquiao


Also if a fighter absolutely dominates another very good fighter who was considered the favourite against him or at least even money...in a BIG FIGHT...I'm usually a fan for life, and would go out of my way to defend him. It takes a great fighter to dominate, in a BIG FIGHT, a guy that's at least even money to beat him.

As such

Calzaghe (vs Lacy)
Mayweather (vs Corrales)
Hopkins (vs Trinidad)
Jones (vs Toney)
Pacquiao (vs Barrera)


are some of my all time favourites.

I'm biased against

one dimensional left hookers like Ruddock, Tua and Frazier. I don't tend to like southpaws either


GREAT THREAD by the way....

 

I see! Your Tyson & Duran hatred had previously puzzled the hell out of me. :bears: Still can't understand not liking Duran's style though. There was certainly some mauling in there but the artistry in foot placement/angles inside, punch variety, balance, feinting etc outweighed it 10 fold. IMO of course. Ditto for prime Hopkins. Maybe your first point in the stronger reason with Duran? Thanks for explaining, though.opcorn:

 

With due respect Sly, Im not sure you're really entering into the spirit of the thread. :: You've basically said here: 'Im biased towards guys who are brilliant'.....'and biased towards guys who I consider to have proven themselves brilliant in big fights'.

You aren't really admitting anything here as much as justifying your positions.

 

Just from an observers perspective I reckon your biases might be reinterpreted as: A) biased towards guys with great speed and athleticism who hone a slightly unorthodox style to fit their particular gifts. B) biased towards guys who's dominance in a big fight personally SURPRISED you and made an impression that stuck. But then, Im breaking with the spirit of the thread by saying so, too.:doh:

 

You summed it up exactly.

Now I don't know what the spirit of the thread is...I guess I have to re-read your first post and see and then I'll offer a better answer.

 

I have absolutely no biases whatsoever

 

If Canada had more good fighters i guess i'd have a bias in their favor but there just aren't a lot.

I do not like defense first minded southpaws.

 

All of your biases seem to resonate with me. Not sure whether that translates to our liking/disliking the same fighters, and I'm not even sure if it would've occurred to me to describe my biases the way you have. But like I said, having read em, I find myself sharing in them.

Nearly all of my so-called biases, as I see them, are due to my preference for a particular style. To me, a fighter’s style reveals his temperament, his mentality, and his motivations. And so my biases can be described from all angles – from a fighter’s personality to his punch selection. These things cannot be untangled.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
For example, I don’t like fighters who seem nervous or anxious in the ring. As rationale as it may be to feel scared in a fight, if it’s on display, it’s usually accompanied by tactics like excessive holding, pot-shotting, and running.
<o> </o>
I prefer fighters who maintain a steady and sustainable rhythm. I don’t like spurt-fighters. As with nervousness, spurt-fighting is generally accompanied by tactics like excessive holding, pot-shotting, and running.
<o> </o>
I like fighters whose obsession is to put hurt on their opponents. The opposite of this is fighters who are obsessed with not getting hurt, and this leads to shitty fights.
<o> </o>
I tend to like fighters who rely on technique, repetition and craft as opposed to improvisation and chaos. I like fighters whose style is rehearsed and not reactionary. I prefer a thoughtful punch over an explosive one. An accurate one over a loaded up one.
<o> </o>
Of course athleticism is an asset in the ring. But without skill, it is of no use in the ring, at least not when the rules are being enforced. For this reason I favor skill over athleticism, and prefer over all the combination of both.
<o> </o>
I scoff at this game for the way it’s allowed fighters with 10 fights to emerge victorious in a championship fight. What does it say about this sport? It says that somehow or another, fighters are shaping the sport when it should be the other way around.
<o> </o>
Prize fighting should be a violent dance – not a tedious mess.

 

REED is Partial to an ATHLETIC Style of Fighting (Handspeed, Balance, Reflexes, Mobility, Feinting, etc.) as Looooooooong as it's NOT in an Overly DEFENSIVE Manner...Being Able to HURT Guys Goes A Loooooong Way w/REED Too....

Cassius Clay, PRIME Roy Jones, Ray Leonard...130 lb Floyd Mayweather...Aaron Pryor & Prince Naseem Hamed (Even Though Both of them had PISS POOR Balance), Manny Pacquiao...THOSE R the Types of Styles that IMMEDIATELY Attract REED's Boxing Eye...

Despite his LACK of Power & His Defensive Wizardry, REED Liked Watching Pernell Whittaker as Well, Because he Stayed IN THE POCKET More than he's Given Credit For...

What REED LOATHES is when Fans of the Come Forward Fighters ATTEMPT to Portray them as Good DEFENSIVE Fighters...REED has Heard the Names Frazier, Chavez & Even Margarito Thrown Out There as Guys w/"Underrated Defense" & That's BULLSHIT...That'd B Like REED Saying "Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather were UNDERRATED as Blood & Guts WARRIORS"::...

REED Appreciates ALL Styles...Matthew Saad Muhammad & Boom Boom Mancini had LEAKY Defense, yet they're 2 of REED's Favorites EVER...Guys like Cory Spinks or Derrick Gainer, who Never EVER Engage, R @ the BOTTOM Of REED's Stylistic Preference List...



REED:mj:

 

Come to think of it, I don't like most fighters who are the product of the U.S. amateur program.

 

Basically just ADMITTING a bias that might contribute to us being wrong in our evaluations of fights or fighters at times or at least skewered in our reasoning. Not just giving rational reasons & justifications for our opinions, which is what your post felt like.

 

But I hear all the time that Whitaker's "offense" was under-rated. Afterall, he knocked out Hurtado and Nazario.

Claiming that Chavez's defense is under-rated, or that it was good, considering his style, is no less valid than saying an Audi is fast for being four-wheel drive, or that for a Chinese Restaurant, Richie Chan's makes a good hamburger. Not sure why you can't grasp the concept. Or refuse to.

By the way, I don't recall a single person ever claiming that Margarito's defense was under-rated.

 

Be careful mentioning Roy Jones and Mayweather...Hut*Hut will likely suggest that this response is not within the "spirit" of his topic. ::

 

I'm biased towards guys who come forward a lot with little respect of what incoming in return. This is probably why I liked Hatton so much and why I have so much time for the likes of Nigel Benn, Arturo Gatti and latterly Michael Katsidis. Guys who are not quite good enough to trouble the very, very best but who make for wildly entertaining fights.

MTF

 

Let me submit once more - defense has to be evaluated in THE CONTEXT OF A STYLE! If a guy is landing 10 punches but takes 3 in that time period, it's more effective than a guy who only takes 2 but only lands 2. Period. This is BOXING defense where the objective is winning fights and laying more hurt on the other guy than you do, not street defense where running away is great defense. This is not a complex point....as you say, guys like Gainer, Spinks, Dirrel fucking suck. They might take less shots over 12 than Chavez did but they pay the price for that in every other department of their game, precluding them from being A level fighters. Their defense is not EFFECTIVE and they're perfect exemplars, at the extreme end, of my point.

Appreciate you sharing though, REED. I'd definitely agree as an observer that you do have a preference for athleticism. Im kinda the opposite, actually. Maybe thats because as a mediocre athlete myself I like seeing guys overcome deficits with shear craft. Plus I just find 'crafty' guys more rewatchable, since there's something there to study - speed & athleticism just is it can't be replicated or learned from. And i like to pretentiously think of boxing as a bit of an art/science....probably to justify liking something so barbaric so much.

 

U Can B a GOOD Offensive Fighter w/Out Being a PUNCHER, Necessarily...Look @ Devon Alexander...He's NOT a "Puncher", Per Se (Despite KO'ing Urango), but he's VERY Offensive Minded...

Typically, Pernell Whittaker OUT LANDED his Opponents...OUT THREW the Majority of them Too...Pernell Whittaker CONSISTENLY Threw & Landed MORE Punches than his Opponents...That's SUPERIOR Offense....

Attaching the CAVEAT to the Chavez's of the World is FINE, just DON'T Tell REED Chavez was a "Good Defensive Fighter", Because he WASN'T..."For his Style"???...YES, but when Compared to OTHER "Good Defensive Fighters", HELLtotheNO...When the Names, Chavez or Frazier Come Up in 'Defensive' Threads, they Quite Simply DO NOT Belong....

Shit, REED Could Say that he's a Damn GOOD Fighter for a Guy that DOESN'T Fight @ All:shit:...But There's NO Logic Whatsoever in that Statement, yet Guys like YOU Similarly Try to Attribute NON-EXISTENT Qualities to your Stylistic Faves...

YOU SPECIFICALLY Said that Margarito "Blocked More Shots than it Appears", in a BOGUS Attempt @ Portraying him as Something OTHER than the PISS POOR Defensive Fighter that he is/was....



REED:mj:

 

WTF?:dunno:

 

Says WHO???...

YOU'RE The Guy COMPLICATING what Defense Is, to Suit YOUR Bias...Simply Put, "Defense" is NOT Getting Hit, N Boxing Terms...Context of Style is IRRELEVANT...Again, U're ONLY Playing that Guard to SUIT your Bias...

Who was a BETTER Defensive Fighter???...Willie Pep or Henry Armstrong???...Archie Moore or Rocky Marciano???...Muhammad Ali or Joe Frazier???...Pernell Whittaker or Julio Cesar Chavez???...

Those R All VERY EASY Questions to Answer, Hut...& "Context Of Style" is IRRELEVANT N Assessing them...EXCELLENT Topic, F.Y.I...



REED:mj:

 

Ok then, Oscar De la Hoya put in a MASTERFUL defensive display in the last 3 rounds against Trinidad. He barely took 5 clean punches in 3 rounds, what a masterful display of skill & boxing ability.

AgREED?

 

ok. what i hear also is that Whitaker's power was under-rated. Afterall, he knocked out Hurtado.

actually, the statement that you're a good fighter for a guy who doesn't fight at all, would make sense if in fact you managed to perform better than expected in a fight. but it's far less interesting than to note that Chavez, for all of his focus on offense, was surprisingly good at not getting hit.

 

To answer your questions - Pep, Moore, Ali & Whitaker. But apart from Armstrong/Pep (which is highly debatable), the answer to the question also corresponds to who the better fighter was. And if asked I would just as likely turn it around and argue that guys like Whitaker, Ali ect had underrated & extremely effective offenses since they were able to land shots while positioning themselves to not take shots in return. I guess I just see effective defense and offense as being closely integrated.....maybe so much that my comments on either separate from the other are kinda nonsensical. Also as you say my biases cause me to appreciate what guys like Chavez & Frazier were able to do defensively at their best more.

So in the 'spirit' of the thread (and the hope that you and Sly might enter into it with some other admission of your own ::) I'll admit you're right and my biases may be clouding my judgement.

 

Uuuuuh, REED is ON RECORD Stating that Dela was ROBBED in the Fight w/Tito...It Would've Been Nice if he Employed MORE Offense, but INCLUDING the Finish, Dela Did MORE than Enough to WIN that Fight....

Defense is Merely a FACET of Boxing, Hut...So U COULDN'T Refer to it as a "Masterful Display of Skill & Boxing Ability"...Dela DID Illustrate who the SUPERIOR Defensive Fighter was Though...

CLEARLY...




REED:hammert:

 

He illustrated that in the first 9 rounds though, not the last 3, didn't he? Despite taking more hard shots per round in the first 9. That's just my point, such as it is - that the number of shots you take isn't the be all and end all of effective defense. If you aren't landing enough it doesn't achieve anything in boxing terms. And conversely the number of punches you land per round might not be the be all end all of effective offense, if you have to ship allot to land them. To turn around the above example, if a guy like Gatti lands 3 shots against Oscar but ships 10, and Whitaker only lands 2 against him but only has to ship 2 in return his OFFENSE is less effective, since it's sloppy and wild.

But as you correctly point out, perhaps part of this is just a bias for my preferred style of guys who fight more in the pocket. So lets get back to the thread.....which was meant to be about admitting biases and slants in our reasoning, not arguing for our well established opinions all over again.

 

Anybody that Says Whittaker was an "Underrated Puncher" is LYING to Themselves...His KO % Speaks for ITSELF...



REED:mj:

 

Biased for guys who are successful with unique styles--like Ingle's fighters.
Biased for successful amateurs.
Biased for fighters who I think are underrated.

Biased against overrated fighters. And that tends to make mE biased against American fighters.

 

Biased Against
Fighters who are hyped by their sponsors/patrons in the media.
Fighters who won't change their styles to conceal their weaknesses.

Biased For
Fighters with no mainstream backing.
Fighters who change their styles to conceal their weaknesses.

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by the latter examples?