Printable View
Boxing or Aggression, one fight I remember was Mustafa Hamsho v Alan Minter, Minter boxed Hamsho's
head off but the judge's gave it to Hamsho on Aggression.?
What your take on this, if you are hitting your opponent by boxing on the back foot .and you are boxing his head off and you lose to Aggression.:confused:
I am not a purist all though I can admire and enjoy watching a great Boxer pick someone apart. I like to be entertained and to see real heart and determination even if this is displayed by the less technically adept. I do despite this though, agree that aggression on it's own is not enough, it must be effective aggression. To reward someone who may be relentless in coming forward even though he is getting smacked back by crisp, clever counter punching is just not cricket.
A fighter who can through hard work, and thorough preparation, build stamina and fitness levels to somewhat bolster his more limited boxing prowess, and then use this in a fight to beat the more accomplished boxer, to me can be equally as admirable as the naturally gifted technician who lacks the application to train hard and is simply not as brave.
It's all about pure boxing and clean punching over plain aggression. Only time I give credit for aggression is when that fighter displays effective aggression.
judges nowadays tend to award the aggressive fighters over the effective boxers though. It's as if dudes dont even get credit for defense and ring generalship..
The art of boxing has regressed bigtime. There is a reason why this sport is referred as a sweet science.
Mindless aggression and lack of skills are for UfC and tough man competitions like Thunderbox.
Hamsho was awarded the decision on pure Aggregation, Minter just picked him apart I could not
believe it.?;D
I struggle with this because I love the aggressive style figters. Don't get me wrong, I love the skills of a true boxer, a Mayweather. I can appreciate it and enjoy it, but there is something about a Maidana or a Froch that I just love.
Low skill level, blocks punches with their face, walks in straight lines. Unless they are getting blatantly picked apart (aka Ward vs Froch) then when I'm scoring I always seem to (unfairly) score towards the aggressor.
There is not much skill marching forward, stooping punches with your face,in boxing the idea is to hitQuote:
Originally Posted by 0james0
and not be hit yourself.?Yes you can be aggressive but you have to land some punches,and I in joy watching fighter's taking some to give some.
One other fight Calzaghe V Lacy, Jeff was very Aggressive, but that was a very one sided hiding,so
you could say aggression did not pay off.?:)
Agree with that 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
My favourite fighters are Tyson and JCC superstar so love aggression.
Two fighter's that are hardly run of the mill, Master skill full aggression.?;D;Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Chavez has great bodily aggression but was a master at punch placement and doing subtle thing inside, tucking to the body right behind a guys elbow and he could look square but stepped around ever so slightly to cut guys off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
There is nothing better than watching a guy rush in and get peppered with sharp counters, timing. Judges and some fans can be sometimes swayed by the huge bombs and body language of a guy 'making' the fight but being punched in the face is still a bad thing, regardless if a guy is ko'ing you with one shot, or just busting you up ever so gradually.
The fight between Mike McCallum v James Toney, two great boxers went exactly like what you said. McCallum out boxed and out jabbed Toney, but James kept landing big impact punches in the round and the judges went for his type of aggression.
Good call. Two guys with degrees in the science right there. I still had Toney nicking first but its been awhile. Mccallum got him off the inside game a bit and Toney was loading up. Really good fights those, not talked about alot really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
The old body snatcher Mike McCallum, what a great fighter, super boxer a complete fighter
happy day's.?;D
i remember watching minter/hamsho and thinking minter had won and i rewatched watched it a couple of times last year and still felt that minter had won but i did feel it was a little closer than i had thought when i had first seen it
For me it's simply a matter of who is able to execute their plan better. A "boxer" needs to be effective much more often during the course of the round, whereas if a "slugger" lands a good few shots that noticably hurt the boxer they could steal it. It all comes down to who controls the fight. Coming foward by itself means nothing unless effective shots are accompanying it. Likewise a briliant defensive display by itself won't win a round for me, unless there are counters included. So applying this to the original question I don't prefer a boxer or a slugger as far winning rounds I prefer the one that executes their plan better.
Far comment , we all have different view's on what we like in a boxing match.?:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
I feel Minter just out boxed him, one thing you can't take away from Minter he was a fine boxer,Quote:
Originally Posted by YIDDLE
Hamsho on the other hand very tough and crude.?:)