One Dimensional Fighters

Is this maybe an overused term or a misused term?

I mean you only hear it used to describe come forward agressive guys. But a lot boxer/counterpunchers are kinda one dimensional. A lot of them can't fight on the inside, or don't fight nearly as well coming forward/leading.

But if you get a guy who can move and counter you almost never hear him called one dimensional even if he's not effective coming forward, or not effective on the inside.

So I think a guy who is not one dimensional can lead and counter, can come forward and fight off the back foot, can fight on the inside and the outside. I don't think you have to be as good in every area, that's almost impossible, Floyd's one of the first guys on my list cause he does everything well but he's probably better on the back foot than coming forward. Maybe that's too high of a standard for not being one dimensional, I don't know.

So right off the top of my head these guys I think are NOT one dimensional fighters, guys that can do a lot of different things.

Floyd-already said why
Toney-not as good coming forward and leading but can do it
Hopkins-turned into more of a just mover boxer but can fight on the inside and can come forward
Barrera-can do just about everything
Guzman-very versatile
Castillo-not as versatile as some of these guys but is underrated at range and can counter and obviously can fight on the inside and come forward
Winky-a bit of a hard one cause when's the last time he's fought off his back foot, but earlier in his career you could see that he could do it
Maybe Calzaghe, I don't know, he's not as good at close range but he can come forward and fight off the back foot, he's pretty versatile.
I guess Oscar's pretty versatile.

I'm probably forgetting some guys but the point is I think a lot of guys are at least fairly one dimensional, doesn't mean they're bad fighters. I mean, what's the best way to fight a counterpuncher that likes to fight off his back foot? Make them come forward and lead, a lot of guys who are great off the back foot are not great at all coming forward and leading. Also the term is just thrown around without people saying what they think it means, its basically just a term for pressure fighters.

So what makes a guy one dimensional? Is it only come forward agressive guys? Who are guys that are NOT one dimensional fighters?

Watch Hulk say Mayorga ;D

when you say one dimensional i immediately think tito!!
but how one dimensional was tito? i mean really he didnt do alot or change but he used quite subtle tactics of fighting his fight...
he did move side to side ..not always but he would move while he stepped...
and some might not notice he used small steps while throwing a hard jab to close distance and the opponent couldnt stop it because they were getting fired at and wouldnt notice the small steps at the same time... i guess it jus worked for tito so he cracked on with that style, problem is as soon as someone watches his fight tapes and gets a plan down i.e definiately winky, probably de la hoya and bhop
you can just outbox him..im not sure if it was one dimensional or repetative? is it the same thing in a way?
i often think the one dimensional fighters are the most entertaining, that is until they get figured out and they have to evolve in some sort of way!
peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by body head banger

when you say one dimensional i immediately think tito!!
but how one dimensional was tito? i mean really he didnt do alot or change but he used quite subtle tactics of fighting his fight...
he did move side to side ..not always but he would move while he stepped...
and some might not notice he used small steps while throwing a hard jab to close distance and the opponent couldnt stop it because they were getting fired at and wouldnt notice the small steps at the same time... i guess it jus worked for tito so he cracked on with that style, problem is as soon as someone watches his fight tapes and gets a plan down i.e definiately winky, probably de la hoya and bhop
you can just outbox him..im not sure if it was one dimensional or repetative? is it the same thing in a way?
i often think the one dimensional fighters are the most entertaining, that is until they get figured out and they have to evolve in some sort of way!
peace

---

I'd have to say Tito was a bit one dimensional, he basically liked to edge forward and fight at enough distance to get off with his power punchers, he found it hard to adapt, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good fighter. The "Tito can't beat boxers" thing is a little overdone, were talking about Oscar, Bernard, and Winky, three of the best boxers of our era. Good boxers don't beat Tito, great ones do.

But CC for thinking about exactly what exactly "one dimensional" means, that was kinda the point of the whole thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by body head banger

when you say one dimensional i immediately think tito!!
but how one dimensional was tito? i mean really he didnt do alot or change but he used quite subtle tactics of fighting his fight...
he did move side to side ..not always but he would move while he stepped...
and some might not notice he used small steps while throwing a hard jab to close distance and the opponent couldnt stop it because they were getting fired at and wouldnt notice the small steps at the same time... i guess it jus worked for tito so he cracked on with that style, problem is as soon as someone watches his fight tapes and gets a plan down i.e definiately winky, probably de la hoya and bhop
you can just outbox him..im not sure if it was one dimensional or repetative? is it the same thing in a way?
i often think the one dimensional fighters are the most entertaining, that is until they get figured out and they have to evolve in some sort of way!
peace

---

I'd have to say Tito was a bit one dimensional, he basically liked to edge forward and fight at enough distance to get off with his power punchers, he found it hard to adapt, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good fighter. The "Tito can't beat boxers" thing is a little overdone, were talking about Oscar, Bernard, and Winky, three of the best boxers of our era. Good boxers don't beat Tito, great ones do.

But CC for thinking about exactly what exactly "one dimensional" means, that was kinda the point of the whole thread.

---

lol backatcha!
lol dont fuss me baby, he never got beat by noone who isnt a future hall of famer!!
wasnt criticisin tito in a bad way, wouldnt change him for the world, my fav fighter!!
peace

Lacy ;)

lacy is definetly one deminsional. me and alot of other people on here have alway said that.

mayorga

How versatile was a guy like Vernon Forrest?

Didn't really do all that well making a fight, didn't move much or that well, had pretty much no infighting skills outside of holding. Basically just liked to keep range with his jab, time you with rights and uppers if you got closer and if you got inside would hold. Good fighter, maybe not totally one dimensional but not really a versatile guy.

Tito, Lacy, Nigerian Nightmare, Pacman(earlier on, but now got tricks up his sleeve)

Great topic OumaFan! cc

Yeah, Tito either won excitingly or lost every round. heh
I think Tito and "One Dimensional fighter" are synonymous!








I just want to bring this up.
That even multi-dimensional fighters get caught,
and look limited when in all
other fights they were dominant.
Roy Jones had a MILLION DIMENSIONS!
But it didn't matter because Tarver, of all people,
knocked Jones into another dimension!!! haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

How versatile was a guy like Vernon Forrest?

Didn't really do all that well making a fight, didn't move much or that well, had pretty much no infighting skills outside of holding. Basically just liked to keep range with his jab, time you with rights and uppers if you got closer and if you got inside would hold. Good fighter, maybe not totally one dimensional but not really a versatile guy.

---

You just nailed that one.

Never liked that style. I'm not down for the good ol' "one-two" punch. :D
I tend to like fluid boxers, with either style of boxer, puncher, or brawler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrokai

Great topic OumaFan! cc

Yeah, Tito either won excitingly or lost every round. heh
I think Tito and "One Dimensional fighter" are synonymous!








I just want to bring this up.
That even multi-dimensional fighters get caught,
and look limited when in all
other fights they were dominant.
Roy Jones had a MILLION DIMENSIONS!
But it didn't matter because Tarver, of all people,
knocked Jones into another dimension!!! haha

---

CC.

Even Jones wasn't perfect, as good as he was, and he was definitely great on the outside countering when a guy came to him, and he was pretty good attacking too, but he really wasn't much of an inside fighter. Not one dimensional by any means but I think a guy like Floyd is more well rounded cause he's good inside, in the pocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrokai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

How versatile was a guy like Vernon Forrest?

Didn't really do all that well making a fight, didn't move much or that well, had pretty much no infighting skills outside of holding. Basically just liked to keep range with his jab, time you with rights and uppers if you got closer and if you got inside would hold. Good fighter, maybe not totally one dimensional but not really a versatile guy.

---

You just nailed that one.

Never liked that style. I'm not down for the good ol' "one-two" punch. :D
I tend to like fluid boxers, with either style of boxer, puncher, or brawler.

---

True... look @ Barrera... He has more demensions then I can count... Fir the record; everyone hates on the last Juarez bout. I thought it was a great tactical fight and was fun to see how truly great Barrera is!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "PRIDE OF BOSTON"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrokai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

How versatile was a guy like Vernon Forrest?

Didn't really do all that well making a fight, didn't move much or that well, had pretty much no infighting skills outside of holding. Basically just liked to keep range with his jab, time you with rights and uppers if you got closer and if you got inside would hold. Good fighter, maybe not totally one dimensional but not really a versatile guy.

---

You just nailed that one.

Never liked that style. I'm not down for the good ol' "one-two" punch. :D
I tend to like fluid boxers, with either style of boxer, puncher, or brawler.

---

True... look @ Barrera... He has more demensions then I can count... Fir the record; everyone hates on the last Juarez bout. I thought it was a great tactical fight and was fun to see how truly great Barrera is!!!!

---

Barrera's a perfect example of a guy that really has a lot of dimensions.

Guy can come forward and be a pressure fighter like he was earlier in his career, and still does at times like the third Morales fight, can fight on the inside, and can win fights boxing and moving, jabbing and countering. Can do it all.

What makes a One Dimensional Fighter 1-D?

Hmmm... repitition I suppose.

In that case Winky's the most 1-D mofo I've ever seen! haha



------------------

Yeah, I Floyd even stated that Holyfield was a greater boxer than
Jones Jr. because he could box from the outside and inside,
while Jones couldn't go on the inside. His words.
Floyd is well rounded, but I have a feeling he's going to end
up like Leonard in Duran Leonard I, and think he can get on the
inside of a superb volume puncher.
Hope Floyd isn't listening. haha Because I'm going to bet on that!!!
And I seriously feel that's how he's going to get his first loss,
because he believes he's invincible.