What current fighters would you classify as outside fighters, or pure boxers?
Printable View
What current fighters would you classify as outside fighters, or pure boxers?
Rigo would be my first thought as a pure skilled boxer who likes to stay on the outside.
The obvious one for me is Wlad Klitschko. Brook likes to box behind the jab as well. I find that, historically/generally speaking, European fighters tend to fight from the outside, and are usually very fundamentally sound when it comes to technique.
And Cubans
Wlad. If he wasn't outside he'd grab and hold like a sissy so he could get back outside. Purest outside fighter you can get.
Keith Thurman after this weekend?
failure is the key of sucesses
Linares is pleasure to watch on outside with shifts and counter combos. Not a purist at all but highly skilled thinking boxer. Lara but he too can fight with a chip on his shoulder. Guess you can even add Foreman as 'pure' boxer, just not a great one. Very few pure boxers when speaking about constant back foot and mostly defensive minded. Algieri thought he was. Wlad of course. Chad Dawson up until Saturday night. There can be a negative connotation when talkin purist boxers but even the best have changed their stripes from time to time and pushed there advantages no matter how dominate. And the ones who don't and coast on leads..or simply 'defend' to survive..those are the ones we hope are caught by some live underdog :-X.
I'm ripping off somebody or a couple of people who have posted on here primarily, but I feel like the terms out fighter and pure boxer are far too often considered mutually inclusive, where as someone who tends to fight inside is never considered it. Guys are often called "one dimensional" when they don't tend to box from the outside, even if they actually have a very nuanced skill set. If a guy can only box from long range, why is this seen as inherently more technical than a guy who is masterful on the inside? Guys like Loma, Mayweather, Roman Gonzales are pure boxers, because they have exceptional understanding of range and the ability to fight in all quarters, depending on what gives them the best chance to win and avoid punishment. I'd say its the true ability to adapt that makes someone a pure boxer.
The heavyweight american fighters in the bare knuckle era at the early stages were all inside fighters and clinchers. What we know of as "out boxing" was made popular by English boxers and borrowed heavily from fencing. This was an stylistic match up back then between fighters from both countries, and of course it had a lot of patriotism and pride behind it. I'm not exactly sure when out boxing became popular in the states though. But once upon a time, what we know of today as Mexican style was American style.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
Talk of pure boxers reminds me of the idea of 'Authenticity' or 'Selling out' in music. It is very subjective and one man's pleasure is another man's poison. There is a solid deep history now of techniques on which to draw and the ability to at least always have an alternative or plan B in one's arsenal often seems to be the deciding factor. Not a 'Plan B' hatched by the coach but an innate flexibility and ability to be able to improvise on the spot in the heat of it. Outside fighting is effective but very one dimensional if you are being negated and the other guy has you tied up. Alternatives are not only essential bit the ability to move into them fluidly is what gives you that space, that opportunity to make you style count.