What were some times where a fighter lost to a fighter below his level because he was a bad stylistic match-up?
Printable View
What were some times where a fighter lost to a fighter below his level because he was a bad stylistic match-up?
Shane Mosley vs Vernon Forrest & Shane Mosley vs Winky Wright: Both times Shane was up against lanky long fighters with good jabs and good right hands as well as solid defenses.
Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas: sure Mike didn't train and sure Buster worked his ass off, but you had to believe that somebody like a Douglas would come in and beat Tyson, maybe by decision, but you never thought you'd see Tyson KO'd. That matchup was very similar to the Mosley-Forrest matchup only Douglas hadn't had any consistency as a fighter and he certainly had never achieved and would never again achieve that success in the ring.....it was a bad style matchup exacerbated by Mike Tyson not training.
A few cases come to mind:
Terry Norris vs Keith Mullings
Kostya Tszyu vs Vince Philips/Ricky Hatton
James Toney vs Drake Thadzi/Dave Tiberi/Montell Griffin
Antonio Tarver vs Glen Johnson
Vernon Forrest vs Ricardo Mayorga
Andrew Lewis vs Mayorga
Roberto Duran vs Tommy Hearns
Tommy Hearns vs Iran Barkley
Marco Antonio Barrera vs Junior Jones/Pac Man (first fight)
Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas and Terry v Mullings.
Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.
Terry Norris was shot by the time he lost to Mullings, peak Terry would destroy him.
Second that, alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Kostya Tszyu vs Vince Philips/Ricky Hatton
Kostya Tszyu got soft version of what happened to Tyson before DOuglas, he got cocky, did not train hard enough, relied on his talent and low level of the opponent too much. This has nothing to do with style
OKQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
True, Tyson DID beat better fighters than Douglas (but that's not the question posed). Now, Tony Tucker was a very good fighter, yes he was better than Douglas, BUT Tony Tucker had injured his right hand in sparring and in the fight vs Tyson he broke his hand early on and therefore was fighting Tyson one handed and was at a serious disadvantage. Tony Tucker could have been the guy to beat Tyson had everything fallen into place, but it didn't. Now the question posed was "stylistic nightmares" and I stand by the Tyson's style wasn't good at dealing with fighters who could move and use range on the night he fought Buster Douglas you saw the limitations of Tyson's style...he had trouble working in because Douglas tied him up, he had trouble landing because Douglas used distance. There were times Douglas slipped up and a prime Tyson would have ended things, but at that moment Douglas just simply had the style to beat THAT Tyson and he did so convincingly winning round after round after round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongOKQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
True, Tyson DID beat better fighters than Douglas (but that's not the question posed). Now, Tony Tucker was a very good fighter, yes he was better than Douglas, BUT Tony Tucker had injured his right hand in sparring and in the fight vs Tyson he broke his hand early on and therefore was fighting Tyson one handed and was at a serious disadvantage. Tony Tucker could have been the guy to beat Tyson had everything fallen into place, but it didn't. Now the question posed was "stylistic nightmares" and I stand by the Tyson's style wasn't good at dealing with fighters who could move and use range on the night he fought Buster Douglas you saw the limitations of Tyson's style...he had trouble working in because Douglas tied him up, he had trouble landing because Douglas used distance. There were times Douglas slipped up and a prime Tyson would have ended things, but at that moment Douglas just simply had the style to beat THAT Tyson and he did so convincingly winning round after round after round.
Tyson style was DESIGNED to tackle style of DOuglas and Tucker and ... Ali .... And Master says that since prime Tyson won over Tucker so easily, stylistically, Douglas would be even easier. There was NOTHING special about DOuglas, and bloated motionless Tyson managed KD him with the only clean shot in that fight.
Floyd Patterson had the same style, how did he do vs Ali? Mike Tyson fought Lennox Lewis as well (similar style to Tucker and Douglas) and how did that go? Again, Tony Tucker had a broken right hand, that made a huge difference in that fight, plus Tucker lasted the distance showing that Tyson couldn't even stop a wounded fighter with that style.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSemin
Tyson was Patterson on steroid, far more superior athlete. I might be wrong here, but I recall Patterson dropped D'Amato when he fought Ali and Liston, so D'Amato said it was Patterson loss, not Peekaboo lossQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongFloyd Patterson had the same style, how did he do vs Ali? Mike Tyson fought Lennox Lewis as well (similar style to Tucker and Douglas) and how did that go? Again, Tony Tucker had a broken right hand, that made a huge difference in that fight, plus Tucker lasted the distance showing that Tyson couldn't even stop a wounded fighter with that style.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSemin
Post prison, post Rooney Tyson was not using "peekaboo" against Lewis, he was fighting like most of Freddy Roach fighters , orthodox slugger . If you do not accept this argument, I officially demand your life ban by @Master
So the peekaboo style is unbeatable? Kevin Rooney is training who now? If the style worked as advertised then wouldn't more boxers be using it? Or is it the fact that it's just so demanding and challenging only the best of the best can even begin to use it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSemin
Tucker fought a defensive fight and survived (as did Bonecrusher who fought a negative fight). Tyson would have preferred for them to take chances so he could destroy them.
Bringing Lennox Lewis fight is silly but even Tyson won the first round in that.
Why would Tucker fight defensively?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Oh that's right.....HE HAD AN INJURED AND LATER BROKEN right hand....do you maybe, possibly think that had an effect on how he fought Tyson?
Yes it did and what I said was it may have not worked in Tyson's favour because Tucker was forced to fight defensively and not open up.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWhy would Tucker fight defensively?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Oh that's right.....HE HAD AN INJURED AND LATER BROKEN right hand....do you maybe, possibly think that had an effect on how he fought Tyson?
And I'm just betting that fighting defensively isn't what Tucker wanted to do either....call it a hunch. If Tucker had a healthy right hand to land a right cross with would he have been more or less likely to hurt, knock down, or knock out Mike Tyson?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
@mikeod: anyone good/great puncher with a chin was a bad matchup for Hearns!;D
Edit. Pavlik never should've fought Bhop.
Hop can't beat fast paced fighters like Calzaghe. Joe beats him 3 outta 3. Albeit close in each fight.
De La Hoya was all wrong for Mayorga.
They can fight 1000 rounds and Oscar wins 998 of them.
Pacquiao can't beat counter punchers (with respectable power)
Morales fight one to all Marquez & Floyd. If Bradley had any pop to his shots he wins both.
Yes Pac can take punches, but he responds recklessly.
Edit- another reason why his 2nd fight with MAB doesn't make highlight reels. Marco wanted to counter, so Pac couldn't get off.
Add the fact the Pac overcommits recklessly when he thinks he has his opponent in trouble. The Filipino Terry Norris.
He does it all the time. JMM was fortunate enough to catch him because of his perfectly executed timing. It was no fluke by any means.
Have to agree to disagree. I feel like Buster's size, boxing skill, and jab were perfectly suited to punish the much shorter Tyson. Style-wise, Tyson is made for Douglas, as he was for Holyfield, and would have been for foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Norris was always chinny, so in my opinion, while he was a superior athlete and technician, guys like Simon Brown, Julian Jackson, and Mullings would always have something for him.
Vince was blown out by Ike Quartey in 3 rounds a couple of fights before Kostya. Vince was a big man for 140, had solid boxing skills, and couldn't miss with his right if he tried vs Kostya. Horrible style match up. Ricky was just too physical, in my opinion. Kostya didn't like wars like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminSecond that, alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Kostya Tszyu vs Vince Philips/Ricky Hatton
Kostya Tszyu got soft version of what happened to Tyson before DOuglas, he got cocky, did not train hard enough, relied on his talent and low level of the opponent too much. This has nothing to do with style
Think there is great similarity in how it describes some fighters style or lack there of and any given styles clash where a guy just couldn't resolve another. A 'he had his number' type thing. When I think nightmare style it might be everything from Hamed to a second half Hopkins to Zapata. Fight by fight maybe a Malinga vs Benn? Think Norwood was a nightmare style for Marquez even though still not convinced he beat him. He was also a dirty fighting mofo while we're at it :-X. Griffin vs Toney was like looking in a mirror in spots..close both!..or Holmes clowning a ripe rage in Mercer. Martinez blowing up Chavez jr. Not sure we didn't all see it coming but man it's fun to watch. Juan Coggi...now that is a stylistic nightmare ;D.
I think the saying styles make fights saying is overly simplistic. If 2 guys can each only fight one way, sure, styles will make the fight. You often see this in aggressive fighters. They look unbeatable, but then when things aren't going that one way they come apart.
This is why I always say aggressive fighters are always over rated and boxers are always underrated. A boxer by his very nature can adapt. He won't look as good against fighter A, or fighter B but he can beat fighter A, B and C. The aggressive fighter will destroy fighter A and fighter B and everyone gets excited but then things fall apart against fighter C.
People don't look at all the things people do wrong that decide fights, they mostly look at the things people do right that decide fights. I mean, many people though Pacquiao had good footwork FFS! Even though he was constantly off balance. They see the positive of fast feet and ignore the negative of horrible placement. Then when people use his horrible footwork against him they claim it as a stylistic maneuver when it's not really about his style but rather his ability. The terrible technique they never addressed because they could usually hide it with smart matchmaking.
But then again there are always 10 ways to look at things and I've narrowed my own view so I should shut the hell up.
Terry Norris was highly skilled and talented and the only criticism I can give him was his lack of control and possibly weak chin. His defeats were not because of his style, he beats almost everyone because his skills were of the highest order.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeodHave to agree to disagree. I feel like Buster's size, boxing skill, and jab were perfectly suited to punish the much shorter Tyson. Style-wise, Tyson is made for Douglas, as he was for Holyfield, and would have been for foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Norris was always chinny, so in my opinion, while he was a superior athlete and technician, guys like Simon Brown, Julian Jackson, and Mullings would always have something for him.
Jackson had freakish power and would have lost 9 times out of 10 against Norris. Simon got outboxed in the return to prove my point. Terry was finished by the time he beat Mullings and just broke down. His trainer said that his fight against the Aussie was when he realised that he was finished at the top level.
Informative and intuitive post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
Harada's non stop windmill style was surprisingly to much for Jofre's completeness. Not once but twice.
Much further back Harry Wills must have studied Langford to beat him that many times in about 22 fights.