Effective Aggression or Reckless Abandonment

Effective aggression: Pressure fighters who force a fight but take little punishment in return.

Reckless abandonment: Fighters willing to take in order to give.



Rate the following 10 fighters:


Glencoffe Johnson:
Brandon Rios:
James Kirkland:
Orlando Salido:
Antonio Margarito:
Michael Katsidis:
Alfredo Angulo:
Jean Marc Mormeck:
Kelly Pavlik:
Paul Williams:



Ineffective aggression IMO simply means a fighter exerting lots of energy with few results, do any of those 10 fall into either of these 3 categories?

I'll say Johnson, Pavlik, Mormeck, Margarito and Williams were effective. Salido inbetween. Katisdis, Kirkland and Angulo have no concept of defense, which is why their aggression/power hit a brick wall against world-class fighters.

They're all high end fighters to be fair so they all kinda fall into the same category for me. Take some to give some with a cerebral approach. When I say cerebral I don't necessarily mean smart, more so particularly in the case of say a Margarito, a Rios or Katsidis. They're happy to operate that way and they accept it because it's the best way to get the job done, and against better higher caliber opposition, the only shot they've got. I'd say a Glenn Johnson had a more measured approach to his effective aggression, didn't get hit quite so cleanly and as often as some of the others. But it was still the same principle.

The last option you've given is the most interesting. Ineffective aggression. Exerting lots of energy with little result. On one hand very easy to observe. Peter McNeeley for example flying across the ring at Tyson. Again it was his only shot but the way he went about it was utterly pointless, he achieved nothing. But what about a Chavez Taylor? On a round by round scoring basis you'd have to say that for the most part, Chavez's aggression was ineffective. In the grand scheme of things though his aggression was effective and he was slowly but surely breaking Taylor down. Chavez forcing the stoppage of course makes that something of a mute point. We can then all look back and say how we expertly spotted all the great work he did prior.

Margarito Mosley was a great fight for me. Save for allegedly smashing Cotto's face in with concrete fists, and punching Lujan's ear off, it was the most interesting thing that's ever happened in a Margarito fight. As I said earlier Margarito played the game a certain way and he accepted it, it was the way things worked. I'm going to attempt to punch you in the face a bunch of times, you're definitely going to punch me in the face a bunch more times. If you're too good you win, but I'll be there at the end. There was like a complete system shutdown when Mosely battered him. I accept that you're better than me and going to win, but you don't knock me down or stop me, that's not how things work. His 'system' failed and his face was a picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

They're all high end fighters to be fair so they all kinda fall into the same category for me. Take some to give some with a cerebral approach. When I say cerebral I don't necessarily mean smart, more so particularly in the case of say a Margarito, a Rios or Katsidis. They're happy to operate that way and they accept it because it's the best way to get the job done, and against better higher caliber opposition, the only shot they've got. I'd say a Glenn Johnson had a more measured approach to his effective aggression, didn't get hit quite so cleanly and as often as some of the others. But it was still the same principle.

The last option you've given is the most interesting. Ineffective aggression. Exerting lots of energy with little result. On one hand very easy to observe. Peter McNeeley for example flying across the ring at Tyson. Again it was his only shot but the way he went about it was utterly pointless, he achieved nothing. But what about a Chavez Taylor? On a round by round scoring basis you'd have to say that for the most part, Chavez's aggression was ineffective. In the grand scheme of things though his aggression was effective and he was slowly but surely breaking Taylor down. Chavez forcing the stoppage of course makes that something of a mute point. We can then all look back and say how we expertly spotted all the great work he did prior.

Margarito Mosley was a great fight for me. Save for allegedly smashing Cotto's face in with concrete fists, and punching Lujan's ear off, it was the most interesting thing that's ever happened in a Margarito fight. As I said earlier Margarito played the game a certain way and he accepted it, it was the way things worked. I'm going to attempt to punch you in the face a bunch of times, you're definitely going to punch me in the face a bunch more times. If you're too good you win, but I'll be there at the end. There was like a complete system shutdown when Mosely battered him. I accept that you're better than me and going to win, but you don't knock me down or stop me, that's not how things work. His 'system' failed and his face was a picture.

---

The one you mention that stands out to me is Katsidis. I kinda think he was a pretty dog-gone good insider fighter, blocked or smothered a lot on the inside but if forced to extend those arms and fight from the outside, it was almost as if he never took a class on boxing. Set aside that he starts to bleed on the way to the ring!

Kastisids IMO had effective aggression in a phonebooth affair. Outside ineffective 100%.

Good observation on Chavez Taylor. For me that was Meldrick that caused that. Think Chavez-Rosario and he was amazing! Took little punishment & in return gave a thorough beatdown!

Margarito -Mosley was about one of only 10 fights in my life I called correct. I consider Margarito a reckless abandonment fighter. Or as some say- one who uses his offense as defense.


Rios all day is reckless abandonment. When he got the belt from Acosta, he couldn't counter, he couldn't set traps, he just had to grind Miguel down into exhaustion.

Rios win over Antillon IMO was like a C grade version of the skills displayed by Marquez-Vazquez, where those 2 pummeled each other on the inside- but with well placed punches and some attempts to bob n weave-both Rafael & Izzy had good defense when they chose.
Rios-Antillon placed their shots well, but no desire to defend!!
https://youtu.be/P6OjoDnyqP4

I knew Rios would wear out early in his career due to style, but I enjoyed it -while it lasted!;D

Some may disagree, but I rate Mormeck as ineffective aggression. Meaning he could bang & at time defend, but more times that not succumbed to fatigue. Case in point:

https://youtu.be/KijlmP9zVkQ


Mormeck-Haye Highlights

https://youtu.be/lyUzTGp9S-s

Mormeck-Haye full fight:

https://youtu.be/tQrad06OKn4

IMO, Mormeck exherts energy by following his foe, not cutting the ring off. And for a guy who isn't just muscular, but strong he seems to have no clue on how to break a clinch. He works himself inside to which Haye just clinches his ass, and that's it. Ref breaks and now Jean has to reset all over again.
He won 2 of 3 rounds , gets a KD in round 4, by round 6- he seems to go robotic. Follow, throw, get clinched do nothing, then allows Haye to clock him several times in 7. I give Haye credit for power, but way too much energy wasted by Jean by that point.

Mormeck was a pretty good fighter, exciting to watch. Aggressive, but didn't always translate to wins.

I do not rate Mormeck at all. David Haye was in control against him when they fought despite the brief knock down. Mormeck had all the advantages , he was in his own country, had King as his promoter but still busted up.

Mormecxk shot himself in the foot. He should have done much better against Haye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell

Mormecxk shot himself in the foot. He should have done much better against Haye

---

Infective aggression!;D

The Mormeck one is a good one actually against Haye. Picked up with some pretty decent commentary. Mormeck was getting himself into good positions but then closing himself off so he couldn't land properly. He was aggressive, effective to a degree because he was putting Haye where he wanted him to be, but then not adding the finishing touches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

The Mormeck one is a good one actually against Haye. Picked up with some pretty decent commentary. Mormeck was getting himself into good positions but then closing himself off so he couldn't land properly. He was aggressive, effective to a degree because he was putting Haye where he wanted him to be, but then not adding the finishing touches.

---

One of my pet peeves against boxers is when they crowd themselves and dont give themselves punching room or the right distance. How many times have we seen a guy hurt, on the ropes, covering up, and the other guy is so fucking close and hyper that he is throwing punches whose arc goes WAY over the target? And they just stand there wailing away, throwing punches whose extension would reach 2 feet beyond their opponent, and they never half-step back and figure it out, and cant finish the fucking job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

The Mormeck one is a good one actually against Haye. Picked up with some pretty decent commentary. Mormeck was getting himself into good positions but then closing himself off so he couldn't land properly. He was aggressive, effective to a degree because he was putting Haye where he wanted him to be, but then not adding the finishing touches.

---

One of my pet peeves against boxers is when they crowd themselves and dont give themselves punching room or the right distance. How many times have we seen a guy hurt, on the ropes, covering up, and the other guy is so fucking close and hyper that he is throwing punches whose arc goes WAY over the target? And they just stand there wailing away, throwing punches whose extension would reach 2 feet beyond their opponent, and they never half-step back and figure it out, and cant finish the fucking job.

---

Yup, he was ineffective with his aggression!;D;D;D;D;D