Pure Boxers Have Always Ruled Boxing

[M.I.C.]

Barrera did all that too. So he is a pure boxer right?

I dont recall mentioning Barrera, u have a bad tendency of crediting me with things I didn't write.

[Ryn0]

ya know, I seldomly visit this thread cause I know its plagued with idiots, I find it fascinating that some of you can call me out my name and attempt to belittle a point of view, yet you are the one's still in the thread talking the ******ist shi-t I've ever read. It just makes me feel sad that the day of the intelligent fan is over and that boxing fandom is inhabited by fanboy ****riders who are borderline ******ed.

If you were an intelligent fan then you'd get treated like one.

Fact is IN THIS THREAD, you made up your own definition of pure boxer. You didn't use one that was the generally accepted defininition.

I can make a thread saying "Sluggers have always ruled boxing" and then go on to make up my own definition where fighters with big punches are sluggers and are the most dominant fighters in the sport but it wouldn't be true because that's not the definition of a slugger and they don't rule the sport.

A pure boxer doesn't mean a versatile fighter, it means an out-fighter who sticks behind an educated jab and more often than not has a good defense. Stop trying to argue your point like your definition is the accepted one.

The facts are a myriad of styles have dominated boxing from Boxer-puchers, Sluggers, swarmers and yes pure boxers. Fighters you have mentions do not fit a template, Roy Jones doesn't fit any of these styles. You can't jump make up your own catagory and say the best fighters in the world should be stuck there.

[jrosales13]

I dont recall mentioning Barrera, u have a bad tendency of crediting me with things I didn't write.

I am not saying you mentioned Barrera. However, the way you described Roy is a what Barrera could do. So that makes Barrera a pure boxer right?

[M.I.C.]

If you dont think Roy relied on his boxing skills much more than his brawling ability then there's no talking to you. Barrera tends to brawl, Roy tends to box, is it really that difficult a concept?

[STRUGG]

pure boxers = slick boxers = wilfredo benitez.....sweet pea......corey spinks........WTF.............youre trying to wiggle your way out of this **** thread.........

[jrosales13]

If you dont think Roy relied on his boxing skills much more than his brawling ability then there's no talking to you. Barrera tends to brawl, Roy tends to box, is it really that difficult a concept?

Well ain't you making my point is that Barrera is more diverse(a word that you used for Roy) than Roy? Not outbox, put on a boxing clinic but could also outbrawl you like he had prove many times. So that makes him diverse.

Diverse, somebody who can do it all.


That right there in the bold is what you said a pure boxer is. Barrera could do all that so how is he not a pure boxer in your opinion?

[AntonTheMeh]

lol. I'm on page 11 right now.


but i gotta say this. pure boxer is a ridiculous term. their are many fighters who have their own style, so by definition, define themselves. most boxers fall into certain blanket categories, and even though this maybe the case, it doesn't necessarily mean they fight alike; it only means they fit a certain criteria with their respective abilities.

the "OUT-BOXER" is a fighter who likes to stay on the outside for the most part and box (what ts considers "pure boxer") like ali, like calderon, like pep, like malignaggi, like tunney, and so on.

"BOXER-PUNCHERS" are really the ones who have ruled boxing, and usually are the most popular because for the most part, they are the best. some notable boxer-punchers are ray robinson, ray leonard, joe louis, finito lopez and roy jones.

obviously their are fighters who straddle certain definitions of "boxer" like floyd mayweather (boxer-puncher in his lower weight and outboxer) mike tyson (in-fighter/slugger).

my guess is that ts is convoluting these 2 terminologies (outboxer, boxer-puncher) to prove a point he didn't have to "try" to make, but so far its been hella funny.

[M.I.C.]

Actually jrosales I dont think Barrera could do it all, he had many limitations, slow of foot for instance, limited defense, squared up fighting style. MAB is a great fighter but find a better example

[M.I.C.]

Do you know there's a problem with the term BOXER-PUNCHER? No one really cares about that label, it carries no weight, the term Pure Boxer is much more respected in the sport and in journalism.

[jrosales13]

Actually jrosales I dont think Barrera could do it all, he had many limitations, slow of foot for instance, limited defense, squared up fighting style. MAB is a great fighter but find a better example

What better example than Barrera-Hamed?

So again I will was what limitations does he have? How many rounds did Hamed win? And, would call that brawling by Barrera?