Swarmer, Boxer, Puncher, or Boxer-Puncher

Many fighters don't fit neatly into these catagories, but I would say 95% of fighters fall into these groups MOST of the time. Obviously, the best can change styles from fight to fight or change their styles over their careers.

Examples:

Swarmers: Joe Frazier, Ricky Hatton, Juan Diaz, Jake LaMotta, Mike Tyson
Boxers: Sweet Pea, PBF, Paulie M, Sugar Ray Leonard
Punchers: George Foreman, Ding-a-Ling Wilson, Ernie Shavers, O'Neil Bell, Naseem Hamed
Boxer-Punchers- This is probably going the be majority winner. Tommy Hearns, Kelly Pavlik, Wlad Klitchko, Ray Robinson

I'm allowing two votes, because I think most people would automatically choose Boxer-Puncher, and I want to see how the other styles rate. I though about including an "any style done well", but I think pretty much everyone on this forum appreciates any style done well.

Boxer-Punchers are my top choice, because they combine skill with power. I don't like fighters who go into bouts looking only for point victories. I like guys who find a way to break down their opponent and end the fight. Boxer-Punchers give the science and the thunder. After that, I love swarmers. I appreciate the workrate, the pressure, and they usually make action packed fights. They break down fighters with pressure, and even if they win on points, they gave you your money's worth.

As for pure boxers and pure punchers, I enjoy watching the very best, but I could really care less about about watching mediocre feather-fisted "boxers." Even really good ones, like Cory Spinks, mostly bore me. If I like pure puncher, it's generally because I like their heart or personality - ie Darnell Wilson. I root for the guy, but I've fallen asleep during several of his fights and had to rewind back to the KO.

And one follow up question/related discussion - where does RJJ fit in the spectum? Boxer-Puncher or Boxer gets KO's from accumation? Maybe he just defies classifying.

Boxer Puncher for me, balanced IMO. If a pure bred though I'd choose a very effective puncher like Tyson or Tua. Why did you consider Tyson a swarmer? I think he is the perfect exmaple of a puncher :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Boxer Puncher for me, balanced IMO. If a pure bred though I'd choose a very effective puncher like Tyson or Tua. Why did you consider Tyson a swarmer? I think he is the perfect exmaple of a puncher :-\

---

Tyson was a volumn puncher. He overwhelmed people with a combination of speed, workrate, and power. He didn't have the 1-punch pop of a Foreman or even a Klitchko. Lots of his early KO's, especially the Spinks and Burbeck quick KO's were more a result of intimidation factor. Fighters knew that resistance was futile, and they basically quit. When guys were mentally prepared for Tyson, like Bruno, Ruddock, Tillis, Thomas, Tucker, and Biggs, Tyson wore down fighters with his aggression and workrate.

That being said, for a swarmer, he had good 1-punch power. He had better punching power than plenty of guys who you would consider "punchers" but is was his aggression combined with power that made him special. You could consider him a puncher-swarmer. Lots of swarmers have good power...ie Hatton, Marciano, but others, like Juan Diaz or Kassim Ouma rely only on volumn.

I'm a huge fan of slick boxers.

In their primes & even on the down swing fighters like Bernard Hopkins, Juan Diaz, Ronald "Winky" Wright, Floyd Mayweather jr, Roy Jones jr, Joe Calzaghe, Juan Manuel Marquez, Paulie Malignaggi, & "Sugar" Shane Mosley have that special something that all the other gents of & around their respective weight classes.

It's often, unreal how each of the men above knows what to throw, where to throw, how hard to throw, & when to throw it.

All of the above are good for the sport & generally they define the game.

You left out the huggers. Ricky Hatton, John Ruiz, British heavyweights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

You left out the huggers. Ricky Hatton, John Ruiz, British heavyweights.

---

Ha! I hear ya on that one...but does leaving out & trying to forget count as the same thing. ;) ;D

Boxer punchers ie. Tommy Hearns number 1
Punchers withdodgy chins are fun :)

James Toney in a class of his own - Slick boxer puncher

I voted for swarmer & puncher, but would have voted swarmer-puncher had that been an option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoxingGorilla

I voted for swarmer & puncher, but would have voted swarmer-puncher had that been an option.

---

Those guys are fun...most of the top swarmers are kinda swarmer punchers...Tyson, Frazier, Hatton. They grind you down with pressure and then land the big one. Makes me think of Marciano vs Walcott...after 13 rounds of pressure, down on the cards, he lands that right cross.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Magic Man

James Toney in a class of his own - Slick boxer puncher

---

Young Toney was a boxer-puncher, but as he moved up in weight, he because more of a pure boxer as his ability to throw the big KO punch evaporated. You don't see too many "slick" boxer punchers like Toney.

I choose Boxer....Though Hearns is my all time favorite his power was just a bonus...I became a Tommy fan like most because I was just amazed by a guy soo tall in the 147lb weight class.....His speed and combos were unbelievable.....

But to watch guys like...Lennox Lewis, Pernell, Camacho, who use the ring and make it theirs and controll the fight is what impresses me more then power and KO's

Boxer for me also. Though I like a Tyson type that will murder his opponent or a Hatton type that will definately bring the fight, a guy like Floyd will always intrigue me because of their ability to control situations, and many times use the least amount of energy to do it. Though a boxer-puncher is a very close second, like a Bob Foster type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I choose Boxer....Though Hearns is my all time favorite his power was just a bonus...I became a Tommy fan like most because I was just amazed by a guy soo tall in the 147lb weight class.....His speed and combos were unbelievable.....

But to watch guys like...Lennox Lewis, Pernell, Camacho, who use the ring and make it theirs and controll the fight is what impresses me more then power and KO's

---

I enjoy the boxers, too, but I love the boxer who can end the fight early...like Lennox. Lennox is a CLASSIC boxer-puncher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeanE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

I choose Boxer....Though Hearns is my all time favorite his power was just a bonus...I became a Tommy fan like most because I was just amazed by a guy soo tall in the 147lb weight class.....His speed and combos were unbelievable.....

But to watch guys like...Lennox Lewis, Pernell, Camacho, who use the ring and make it theirs and controll the fight is what impresses me more then power and KO's

---

I enjoy the boxers, too, but I love the boxer who can end the fight early...like Lennox. Lennox is a CLASSIC boxer-puncher.

---

I see the power as a bonus....I don't watch boxing just for the KO but I will not deny when it happens I am happy as a kid in a candy store.....Lennox was a perfect example...I look at Lewis as a pure boxer who just happens to have KO power...I define boxer punchers as guys who can box well but look for the KO...with guys like Lewis it did not matter if it came or not because it was not part of the strategy if you know what I am saying...Most boxer punchers look to go in soften their guy up for some rounds then look for the kill...Guys like Lewis just wait for it to come without searching for it.....


with the exception of the Rahman re-match where I think Lewis wanted the KO just to show Rahman he got lucky and should have just appreciated it instead of running his mouth

i like boxer punchers. exciting and have skill doing it

I hear what you are saying, but I think Lewis looked for the KO plenty. Just because he was patience and set guys up like a chess player doesn't mean he wasn't looking for the KO. He softened guys up with his jab, his feints, his changing of speeds, and mental game. I get what you are saying about letting the KO come to him, but I think he made the KO come to him in most cases in subtle ways. He wouldn't try to force a KO that wasn't there and when necessary, he could simply outbox a guy. His decision victories against top competition came to pretty big punchers - Tua, Mercer, and Tucker, and a very hard to KO Holyfield. But look at his early to midround KOs against quality names:

Ruddock - 2, Bruno - 7, Morrison - 6, Golota - 1, Briggs - 5, Grant - 2, Botha - 2, and of course, Rahman - 4. Oh, and the Tyson 8 mercy-kill (he could have KO'd anytime, but wanted to punish him).

78% Wins by KO. To me that's a boxer-puncher. The power was an essential part of his style and greatness. Without that great 1-punch power, he would not have been an ATG. If he had been featherfisted, he couldn't have outboxed a guy like Tua because he Tua would have walked through his punches. If he were are pure boxer, pure boxers don't KO 78% of the guys they face, against top competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeanE

I hear what you are saying, but I think Lewis looked for the KO plenty. Just because he was patience and set guys up like a chess player doesn't mean he wasn't looking for the KO. He softened guys up with his jab, his feints, his changing of speeds, and mental game. I get what you are saying about letting the KO come to him, but I think he made the KO come to him in most cases in subtle ways. He wouldn't try to force a KO that wasn't there and when necessary, he could simply outbox a guy. His decision victories against top competition came to pretty big punchers - Tua, Mercer, and Tucker, and a very hard to KO Holyfield. But look at his early to midround KOs against quality names:

Ruddock - 2, Bruno - 7, Morrison - 6, Golota - 1, Briggs - 5, Grant - 2, Botha - 2, and of course, Rahman - 4. Oh, and the Tyson 8 mercy-kill (he could have KO'd anytime, but wanted to punish him).

78% Wins by KO. To me that's a boxer-puncher. The power was an essential part of his style and greatness. Without that great 1-punch power, he would not have been an ATG. If he had been featherfisted, he couldn't have outboxed a guy like Tua because he Tua would have walked through his punches. If he were are pure boxer, pure boxers don't KO 78% of the guys they face, against top competition.

---

good points

There's good and bad types of all that fall under those 4 categories. Generally I love the come forward pressure style JCC, Duran and the like, but I absolutely love guys like Joan Guzman, 01/04 Mayweather, James Toney, Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard, Meldrick Taylor, Winky, Gatti, Benn, Eubank, B-hop, Winky, RJJ at 160/168 and recently I've been watching Pernell Whitaker religiously that guy was a freak, incredible fighter. I love all styles really.

Boxer punchers such as the great Alexis Arguello.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmandonny

Boxer punchers such as the great Alexis Arguello.

---

Another classic example!!

I picked boxers.

I find the "swarmer," chest-to-chest phone booth style of fighting to be very boring to watch.

I wouldnt call Pavlik a box puncher. He applies to much pressure to be labled that IMO.

These days im 50/50 with the Box Puncher types. They profile and pose too much and generally look bad under pressure. And if they cant drop their bombs with enough frequency, they rarely ever 'up' the tempo. Im speakiung of the Judah, Prince Naz, A. Lee, Haye, Lennox Lewis types.

I voted swarmer btw. Nice to see a bit of intensity ;)

Swarmers....nah i dont like hug a thons. Punchers....always exciting but my fav has to be the boxer puncher. They got it all, the speed, power, foot work and the ability to control their opponent. Its like watching a master class of boxing, beautiful.