Southpaw punchers

Are there any concussive southpaw punchers? I dont mean boxers with a good left hook, but fighters fighting out of a southpaw stance who are heavy KO artists. There used to be Michael Moorer at LHW but I cant think of many more.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!! You've asked for it now.

Oh s**t!!! Just realised. OK outside of Moorer and Pac, any other concussive southpaw fighters?

I ask because whenever I see a SP throwing a straight left, it doesn't seem or look natural or having much power. But a left hook it a thing of beauty.

Rocky Balboa.

BALTIMORA wrote:Rocky Balboa.

Hmmmmm.

I'm just hoping windy doesn't mention boxers he saw fight live at ringside in 1928 or something.

I am seriously stumped. There's a thread about top ten southpaws on boxongscene, but not concussive ones.

acelino freitas...wasn't he a southpaw...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:acelino freitas...wasn't he a southpaw...

Just checked. He isn't.

BALTIMORA wrote:I am seriously stumped. There's a thread about top ten southpaws on boxongscene, but not concussive ones.

Any ideas why? Calzaghe was a hard hitter until his hands forced him to change a little. Looking at DeGale, he doesn't appear a solid hitter either.

Actually Naz was one. Huge hitter. But he could hit hard with both hands.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:acelino freitas...wasn't he a southpaw...

A quick check of boxrec says no*. Got me thinking though; Donaire and Sergio Martinez aren't southpaws either but weren't their last KOs with their left? Montiel and Williams? Pretty sure Donaire stopped Darchinyan with a left too. Irrelevant I know, but interesting still.

*dont know enough first hand to verify that.

He fought southpaw though; I am definite on that.

azania wrote:Are there any concussive southpaw punchers? I dont mean boxers with a good left hook, but fighters fighting out of a southpaw stance who are heavy KO artists. There used to be Michael Moorer at LHW but I cant think of many more.

Manny Pacquiao, he has huge power in the left as a straight left or the left hook, both devastating weapons and is a certified KO artist.

One of his nicknames was the Filipino slugger, and made the lower weights exciting to watch with all his KOs.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:Are there any concussive southpaw punchers? I dont mean boxers with a good left hook, but fighters fighting out of a southpaw stance who are heavy KO artists. There used to be Michael Moorer at LHW but I cant think of many more.

Manny Pacquiao, he has huge power in the left as a straight left or the left hook, both devastating weapons and is a certified KO artist.

One of his nicknames was the Filipino slugger, and made the lower weights exciting to watch with all his KOs.

Please read the OP's amended question.

Isn't Ortiz a lefty? Not a communist.

A 60 odd percent stoppage record isn't that of a ko artist.

A true ko artist could put old fighters to sleep without being booed.

samevans1 wrote:He fought southpaw though; I am definite on that.

Just seen some of his fights. He isn't.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:Are there any concussive southpaw punchers? I dont mean boxers with a good left hook, but fighters fighting out of a southpaw stance who are heavy KO artists. There used to be Michael Moorer at LHW but I cant think of many more.

Manny Pacquiao, he has huge power in the left as a straight left or the left hook, both devastating weapons and is a certified KO artist.

One of his nicknames was the Filipino slugger, and made the lower weights exciting to watch with all his KOs.

Give it a rest D4. Moreover when talking about concussive punchers, I'm referring to 1 punch KO power. Think Naz.

Here we go. If this thread gets dominated about how hard Pac punches, it will be locked.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:A 60 odd percent stoppage record isn't that of a ko artist.

A true ko artist could put old fighters to sleep without being booed.

I know, but he IS a lefty. Frankly I'm just struggling to think of them.

That wasn't aimed at me at all, was it.

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:Are there any concussive southpaw punchers? I dont mean boxers with a good left hook, but fighters fighting out of a southpaw stance who are heavy KO artists. There used to be Michael Moorer at LHW but I cant think of many more.

Manny Pacquiao, he has huge power in the left as a straight left or the left hook, both devastating weapons and is a certified KO artist.

One of his nicknames was the Filipino slugger, and made the lower weights exciting to watch with all his KOs.

Give it a rest D4. Moreover when talking about concussive punchers, I'm referring to 1 punch KO power. Think Naz.

Pacquiao has one puncher power and answers you questions perfectly and has scored a number of KOs with the left.

Naz fought with a very unorthodox stance.

Donaire is a switch hitting and has scored KOs from the southpaw stance

Ortiz is very strange he is a converted orthodox

Naz was a switch hitter but generally a SP. Unorthodox yet, but a lefty nevertheless.

No, BALTI, I think you can guess who it was aimed at.

The guy with sticky hands from last weekend.

Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

Any ideas why there are rew KO lefties?

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

Any ideas why there are rew KO lefties?

Just a theory, but it might be that they can rarely employ the right hook as a devastating weapon, since they will, for the most part, be facing orthodox fighters. Many of the greatest punchers in history are renowned for employing the leading hand hook as the primary weapon. Not all, of course, but a fair few.

It's the only thing remotely approaching an explanation that I can think of.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

Any ideas why there are rew KO lefties?

Because the money punch has to come from such a long way, the more power you put behind it the easy it to see. Southpaws may look to shorten up there punches to make them land. Also there stance make it difficult for an orthadox fighter to hit, with there right having to come from a long way so soutpaw's stance does favour a more defensive stance.

It takes a special type of fighter to be a southpaw KO artist.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

Any ideas why there are rew KO lefties?

Because the money punch has to come from such a long way, the more power you put behind it the easy it to see. Southpaws may look to shorten up there punches to make them land. Also there stance make it difficult for an orthadox fighter to hit, with there right having to come from a long way so soutpaw's stance does favour a more defensive stance.

It takes a special type of fighter to be a southpaw KO artist.

I agree, D4.

I believe that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing, though your explanation was rather better.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

Any ideas why there are rew KO lefties?

Because the money punch has to come from such a long way, the more power you put behind it the easy it to see. Southpaws may look to shorten up there punches to make them land. Also there stance make it difficult for an orthadox fighter to hit, with there right having to come from a long way so soutpaw's stance does favour a more defensive stance.

It takes a special type of fighter to be a southpaw KO artist.

I agree, D4.

I believe that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing, though your explanation was rather better.

Great minds and all that

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Hamed has already been mentioned I see, and it is interesting that in general, the lefties do tend to be hurtful, rather than devastating punchers.

If we count the switch-hitting Hagler then he'd be near the top, but one really notable exception would be 1920s Featherweight contender George 'KO' Chaney. A marvelous puncher by all accounts, and his record backs that up, particularly considering that he was such a small man.

Vicente Saldivar had some whack on him, too, although again he was never really a genuine one-punch knockout artist.

Any ideas why there are rew KO lefties?

Because the money punch has to come from such a long way, the more power you put behind it the easy it to see. Southpaws may look to shorten up there punches to make them land. Also there stance make it difficult for an orthadox fighter to hit, with there right having to come from a long way so soutpaw's stance does favour a more defensive stance.

It takes a special type of fighter to be a southpaw KO artist.

I agree, D4.

I believe that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing, though your explanation was rather better.

Great minds and all that

Quite so, Sir !

Actually thinking about it Windy that stands to good reason. The majority of boxers are right-handers, so they're more likely to fight right-handed guys. If their tactics don't produce the same effects against southpaws the figures are negligible because the chances are they don't face enough to make a huge difference to the curve. Flip that around and you have southpaws fighting as mirrors of the righted, only the majority of their opponents will be opposite-handed. Does that make sense?



No.

BALTIMORA wrote:Actually thinking about it Windy that stands to good reason. The majority of boxers are right-handers, so they're more likely to fight right-handed guys. If their tactics don't produce the same effects against southpaws the figures are negligible because the chances are they don't face enough to make a huge difference to the curve. Flip that around and you have southpaws fighting as mirrors of the righted, only the majority of their opponents will be opposite-handed. Does that make sense?



No.

Perfect sense, BALTI.

Quite a few lefties actually fight out of an orthodox stance, so I think the actual question is why aren't there many powerful southpaws rather than lefties: Corbett, Jeffries and Barrera being 3 notable cases of this.

BALTIMORA wrote:Actually thinking about it Windy that stands to good reason. The majority of boxers are right-handers, so they're more likely to fight right-handed guys. If their tactics don't produce the same effects against southpaws the figures are negligible because the chances are they don't face enough to make a huge difference to the curve. Flip that around and you have southpaws fighting as mirrors of the righted, only the majority of their opponents will be opposite-handed. Does that make sense?



No.

I agree

Hmmm. Think you are forgetting Marvellous Marvin Hagler? Did not start as a particularly devastating puncher, but gosh did he pick up a few knockouts along the way.
If only he hadn't tried to be so clever against Ray, by attempting to fight orthodox
Also Alan Minter

BALTIMORA wrote:Actually thinking about it Windy that stands to good reason. The majority of boxers are right-handers, so they're more likely to fight right-handed guys. If their tactics don't produce the same effects against southpaws the figures are negligible because the chances are they don't face enough to make a huge difference to the curve. Flip that around and you have southpaws fighting as mirrors of the righted, only the majority of their opponents will be opposite-handed. Does that make sense?



No.

So what you are saying is that southpaws will have an advantage over orthodox fighters because mostly southpaw fight orthodox fighters and orthodox fighters will normally fight orthodox fighter too.

I agree.

A lot of orthodox fighters have problems when facing southpaws.

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Actually thinking about it Windy that stands to good reason. The majority of boxers are right-handers, so they're more likely to fight right-handed guys. If their tactics don't produce the same effects against southpaws the figures are negligible because the chances are they don't face enough to make a huge difference to the curve. Flip that around and you have southpaws fighting as mirrors of the righted, only the majority of their opponents will be opposite-handed. Does that make sense?



No.

So what you are saying is that southpaws will have an advantage over orthodox fighters because mostly southpaw fight orthodox fighters and orthodox fighters will normally fight orthodox fighter too.

I agree.

A lot of orthodox fighters have problems when facing southpaws.

Yeah, basically. I thought that was the whole reason why southpaws were seen as a danger to righties.

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Actually thinking about it Windy that stands to good reason. The majority of boxers are right-handers, so they're more likely to fight right-handed guys. If their tactics don't produce the same effects against southpaws the figures are negligible because the chances are they don't face enough to make a huge difference to the curve. Flip that around and you have southpaws fighting as mirrors of the righted, only the majority of their opponents will be opposite-handed. Does that make sense?



No.

So what you are saying is that southpaws will have an advantage over orthodox fighters because mostly southpaw fight orthodox fighters and orthodox fighters will normally fight orthodox fighter too.

I agree.

A lot of orthodox fighters have problems when facing southpaws.

Yeah, basically. I thought that was the whole reason why southpaws were seen as a danger to righties.

Actually, no. I misread what you said. What I meant was that if southpaws have to adjust from what works for righties because most of their opponents will be opposite-handed, it has a negative impact. Example:
Suppose a right hook works for a righty against a righty. Likewise left hook works for lefty vs lefty. Righty will only have to adjust a small number of times when fighting lefties. Conversely lefty will have to adjust more due to more right fighters.

I think it's like windy said.

Corrie Sanders had heavy (and fast) hands

There are quite a few other heavy handed southpaws.

Wasnt Edwin Valero a southpaw?

In recent years we've also seen Moorer, Prince Naz, Paquaio, Lucian Bute, Harrison (he's got decent power depite his flaws) and Corrie Sanders to name but a few.

I think you have muddled yourself up.

Lefties don't adjust the are use to fighter righties, and when the fight a leftie themselves they are both in a same boat.

Southpaw also takes away an orthodox fighters strongest punch, the right hook and make their jab more easily counterable. .

D4thincarnation wrote:I think you have muddled yourself up.

Lefties don't adjust the are use to fighter righties, and when the fight a leftie themselves they are both in a same boat.

Southpaw also takes away an orthodox fighters strongest punch, the right hook and make their jab more easily counterable. .

No, I'm not muddled. The fact righties have to adjust for lefties doesn't impact the stats so much because there aren't so many lefties around. On the flipside, if the right hook is negated by a lefty, and we assume the left hook is the lefty fighters strongest punch, it's the lefty who has to adjust more often.

BALTIMORA wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:I think you have muddled yourself up.

Lefties don't adjust the are use to fighter righties, and when the fight a leftie themselves they are both in a same boat.

Southpaw also takes away an orthodox fighters strongest punch, the right hook and make their jab more easily counterable. .

No, I'm not muddled. The fact righties have to adjust for lefties doesn't impact the stats so much because there aren't so many lefties around. On the flipside, if the right hook is negated by a lefty, and we assume the left hook is the lefty fighters strongest punch, it's the lefty who has to adjust more often.

Lefties are use to that situation and most of them for that reason don't use the left hook, as the OP was wondering why. They don't adjust, because they are trained all their lives to fight against orthodox fighters.

Do you think all the lefties train together or something?

Very true actually Balti, never though of it like that and surely a southpaws jab is easily countered by a righty?

Devon Alexander can hit hard, he's a lefty, Hagler could bang, he's a lefty

The Mighty Atom wrote:Very true actually Balti, never though of it like that and surely a southpaws jab is easily countered by a righty?

No it is not.

What punch do you think counter's the southpaw's jab?

And why is that so easy?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Very true actually Balti, never though of it like that and surely a southpaws jab is easily countered by a righty?

Well I figured the main reason southpaws are considered a threat is because they're different to most opponents a boxer will face, but that also means they have to train to fight what are to them 'unorthodox' opponents the majority of the time. I'm quite curious of the whole scenario now.

I mean, by rights southpaws should be more used to facing opposite-handed opposition, and so should really take that into account when training etc, but that still means that, as you say, whatever works for one will work (in theory) in mirror for their opponent.

D4, if your going to generalise to say that southpaws can do this and that then the reverse must also be true. A southpaws main punch is the left hook which is negated to a degree by the orthodox stance much like how an orthodox right is negated by the southpaw stance.

The Mighty Atom wrote:D4, if your going to generalise to say that southpaws can do this and that then the reverse must also be true. A southpaws main punch is the left hook which is negated to a degree by the orthodox stance much like how an orthodox right is negated by the southpaw stance.

1) You haven't answered my question.

2) Southpaw generally don't rely on the left hook and have shorten it up to compensate hence the OP's orignally question.

3) Read again what I have wrote that gives southpaws an advantage.

Should I have to explain all this to you, you are meant to be boxing fans.

Your second point actually backs up what we've been saying, they have to adapt their left hook because of the orthodox stance in the same way an orthodox fighter does.

Coming from you I think the irony of your last sentence is lost on me

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your second point actually backs up what we've been saying, they have to adapt their left hook because of the orthodox stance in the same way an orthodox fighter does.

Coming from you I think the irony of your last sentence is lost on me

So still no answer?

Searching for one maybe?

Adapts mean to change, since that how they fight, it is not adapting.

Maybe someone else should explain this to them.