Perfect Style

[Little_Mac]

What do you think the perfect style is? The one that has the best chance of beating all the others. I know it really all depends on the athlete, but if you could choose your style of fighting what would you pick?

I'd pick a swarmer (I'm more of a boxer), I think volumes and volumes of accurate punching can't be beaten. Especially when you attack the body as well as the head. Any opinions?

[Zhaakal]

Swarmer need to have a strong chin or somebody with an ounce of counter punching ability will test that chin all night. In the ams the best is probably Winky Wright with more movement.

[JMonster]

when u find a perfect style, let me know. lol. everything can be beaten. depends what weight class ur in, say for heavyweights, all they do is try to k.o. each other with one punch, get tired, then hug each other. little weight classes, 105 type little, they usually slug it out too, but they don't get tired, they keep going at it. then there r the middle weight classes, u get a mixture and each ppv there isn't only one style that wins. that's y sports r great. u can never be the best, so u just have to keep training and going hard at it. whatever u r, just be the best at it.

[Little_Mac]

Oh for sure. But if you could pick any one style...

[LoBlow]

not a simple question to answer, the opponent dictates a bit to what style you can and will use

[tri-pod]

style mixes with talent so it is almost impossible if not impossible to answer. floyd mayweathers style would be shitty if it wasnt for his speed and lateral and head movement. george foreman couldnt have been a brawler if not for his ability to take punches.

[BeGGeRs]

sugar ray had the closest style to perfect in my opinion

[Relentless]

sugar ray had the closest style to perfect in my opinion

which one?

Seales?

[BeGGeRs]

the one and only sugar ray leonard

[Jennifer Love Hewitt]

I think the best boxers are versatile.

[JMonster]

i would have to say that ya u do need to be versatile. but i think the best would be the boxer. just cus the sport is called boxing. a slick styled puncher

[Polymath]

Swarmer need to have a strong chin or somebody with an ounce of counter punching ability will test that chin all night. In the ams the best is probably Winky Wright with more movement.

So basically, a young WInky Wright. I agree :good

For the pros boxer/puncher is the best style.

[Polymath]

What do you think the perfect style is? The one that has the best chance of beating all the others. I know it really all depends on the athlete, but if you could choose your style of fighting what would you pick?

I'd pick a swarmer (I'm more of a boxer), I think volumes and volumes of accurate punching can't be beaten. Especially when you attack the body as well as the head. Any opinions?

Swarmer is the WORST style, they often get beaten up even in winning efforts.

[krutov]

The best style is to be great at punching, boxing and swarming. All in one. Swarmers are often easy targets because they leave themselves open alot so pure swarmers is vulnerable to accurate punchers.

[mofo2]

sugar ray had the closest style to perfect in my opinionGood shout lol

[Little_Mac]

Swarmer is the WORST style, they often get beaten up even in winning efforts.

A lot of the swarmers i've seen have done pretty well IMO (Tyson, Dempsey etc.) Who specifically are you talking about?

[bestdefense117]

The best style depends on you and your attributes.

[knockout]

A boxerAbrawler like Marco Antonio Barrera.

[SweetScience]

There is no perfect style. Each style works for someone.

[joekirkbycobra]

one were you can hit them and not be hit yourself

[MrSmall]

I'm 5"10 with a long build and long arms, I would be a fool to go slugging in.

[Polymath]

A lot of the swarmers i've seen have done pretty well IMO (Tyson, Dempsey etc.) Who specifically are you talking about?

Of course lots of swarmers have 'done well', or they wouldn't exist. :huh

Tyson is not, nor never was, a swarmer :nono - he was a boxer/puncher who happened to be under average height for a heavyweight; a stocky build does not a swarmer make. A swarmer is in part characterized by the old cliche 'take one to give one' - a defensive wizard like young Mike definitely doesn't fit this bill.

The archetypal swarmer is, of course, Joe Frazier. To even be competitive with Ali (a pure boxer and supposedly the perfect foil for the swarmers skills) he took a horrible amount of punishment.

A great contemporary example would be Ricky Hatton - look at the damage he accumulates in even winning efforts, that is not the face you would expect from a guy who's lost one fight.

So, yes, lots of swarmers do well and are even greats, but its the LAST style I would want to have as a fighter- simply becasue it entails taking the most punishment.

[Little_Mac]

Of course lots of swarmers have 'done well', or they wouldn't exist. :huh

Tyson is not, nor never was, a swarmer :nono - he was a boxer/puncher who happened to be under average height for a heavyweight; a stocky build does not a swarmer make. A swarmer is in part characterized by the old cliche 'take one to give one' - a defensive wizard like young Mike definitely doesn't fit this bill.

The archetypal swarmer is, of course, Joe Frazier. To even be competitive with Ali (a pure boxer and supposedly the perfect foil for the swarmers skills) he took a horrible amount of punishment.

A great contemporary example would be Ricky Hatton - look at the damage he accumulates in even winning efforts, that is not the face you would expect from a guy who's lost one fight.

So, yes, lots of swarmers do well and are even greats, but its the LAST style I would want to have as a fighter- simply becasue it entails taking the most punishment.

Never really thought of it that way, frazier and hatton do take a shit ton of punishment. I still think of Tyson as a swarmer however, he fought in flurries and totally lacked a jab (which is pretty much required to be considered a "boxer"). IMO he is not a boxer/puncher, Joe louis comes to mind when i think boxer/puncher. Tyson is no Joe Louis :lol: .