Boxers that adapt

Howard Winstone famously broke his right hand while at work in a factory. As a result he had to adapt to fighting without his power punch. He developed his left hand to counter his loss of power and etched out a very good career becoming known as a classy boxer.

Paulie Malignaggi has broken his right several times and has had to adapt to using his boxing skills to win fights.

Should this not be a factor when determining their legacy????

Why do I get the feeling that this thread is going to turn into a Calzaghe Thread?  

Maybe it is a consideration, but it is incredibly difficult to quantify unknowns ONETWO, so how could you factor it in to anything but personal opinion?

rick_dagless wrote:Why do I get the feeling that this thread is going to turn into a Calzaghe Thread?  

Maybe it is a consideration, but it is incredibly difficult to quantify unknowns ONETWO, so how could you factor it in to anything but personal opinion?

You're right BOMB this thread.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:You're right BOMB this thread.

Bit of an overreaction, but seriously, without going all UnionCane and autisict reverse lineal champions, how do you factor it in to a legacy, as it is mainly coulda shoulda woulda

Mayweather has adapted he use to be a hard hitting combination puncher in fights he's now resorted to pot shotting! Lennox Lewis adapted after getting beat by mac call and started to use his jab a lot more

Wladimir Klitchko took the "dry hump" (to use Haz's words) to a level unfathomable only a few short years ago.

I see there is a petition set up requesting that Wlad fight Fury.

Winky Wright. When he lost to Julio Cesar Vasquez in 1994 he was an aggressive boxer-puncher who looked for the knockout shot and who had a leaky defence. Fast forward a decade or so, and he was a brilliant counter puncher who set everything up with the jab and who had the best defence in the business.

Howard's hand injury was much worse than a break. He actually lost the tips of three fingers from his right hand and was never really able to make a proper fist as a result. Not that he was the power punching type anyway, but he accomplished miracles with that jab of his, surely the best in all boxing (Ali not excluded) during the 1960s.

I can think of a negative example here - Hector Camacho. After he had been so badly buzzed by Rosario, Camacho completely changed his style, from a classic counterpuncher to an exclusively back foot merchant, not averse to running from his opponent if that's what he fancied. It might have given him extra shelf life, but it certainly reduced his effectiveness as well; I don't believe that Hector was ever the same fighter after he adapted his approach.

The second Winstone-Saldivar fight must be one of the most stunning and perfect technical boxing matches ever caught on film. The science can't get much sweeter than that.

Anyway, two more obvious examples, but fair ones all the same, would be Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Some of Ali's critics say that he never had particularly great ring IQ, but the fact that he was able to return from his three year exile having lost most of what was arguably his biggest strength, his fleeting footwork, develop plans such as the rope-a-dope to con Foreman out of the title and his in close spoiling to buy valuable time against Frazier show that there was a bit more between the ears than some would have us believe, I think. As for Leonard, well I'd have him down as the most versatile fighter I've seen, not just because he could win against all styles, but because he himself could use all of those styles - and use them well - depending on his opponent.

Honourable mention for Holmes, too, in particular the Mercer fight. If you look at the first two rounds in that fight, it's obvious that Holmes' plan was to dance and move.

After two rounds of Mercer jumping all over him, Holmes adapted, starting his own version of the rope-a-dope in the third. From that point on, he absolutely clowned Mercer for the next five rounds or so fighting off the ropes. By the time of the eighth or ninth rounds, Mercer had punched himself out somewhat which allowed Holmes to finish the fight in his usual style, which worked second time out, as he was so much fresher thanks to his tactical switch earlier.

Haglar should get extra credit for being able to fight south paw even tho he was right handed.

I think fighters such as Winstone should be viewed higher then they currently are. You would not blame the guy if he decided to quit after breaking his hand as captain has mentioned but he found a style within the science to cope and acheive big things. Not sure what Ali or the others mentioned could have accomplished had they suffered such a potential career ending accident.

Some fighters don't know how to lose but guys that never lose are generally very adaptable in the course if a fight. Marciano and Calzaghe being two.

[quote="ONETWOFOREVER"]Haglar should get extra credit for being able to fight south paw even tho he was right handed.



Not the best example when you look at his fight against leonard, commentary team were slating him for it, he did much better when he switched to orthodox

88Chris05 wrote:The second Winstone-Saldivar fight must be one of the most stunning and perfect technical boxing matches ever caught on film. The science can't get much sweeter than that.

Anyway, two more obvious examples, but fair ones all the same, would be Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Some of Ali's critics say that he never had particularly great ring IQ, but the fact that he was able to return from his three year exile having lost most of what was arguably his biggest strength, his fleeting footwork, develop plans such as the rope-a-dope to con Foreman out of the title and his in close spoiling to buy valuable time against Frazier show that there was a bit more between the ears than some would have us believe, I think. As for Leonard, well I'd have him down as the most versatile fighter I've seen, not just because he could win against all styles, but because he himself could use all of those styles - and use them well - depending on his opponent.

Honourable mention for Holmes, too, in particular the Mercer fight. If you look at the first two rounds in that fight, it's obvious that Holmes' plan was to dance and move.

After two rounds of Mercer jumping all over him, Holmes adapted, starting his own version of the rope-a-dope in the third. From that point on, he absolutely clowned Mercer for the next five rounds or so fighting off the ropes. By the time of the eighth or ninth rounds, Mercer had punched himself out somewhat which allowed Holmes to finish the fight in his usual style, which worked second time out, as he was so much fresher thanks to his tactical switch earlier.

Sorry Chris, but I don't buy the fact that Ali developed the rope a dope through anything but neccessity- he had no option but to sit on the ropes against Foreman, but was lucky thaat Foremans wild swings let him counter effectively, and that George ran out of steam. He also sat on the ropes against Frazier and copped a proper beating for his troubles, rightly no one credits that as the tactics of a ring genius

I agree it was necessity, HH. He's more or less admitted himself that he'd planned to dance, but realised after a round or two that it just wasn't going to work. But the fact of the matter is that he still adapted his gameplan, and it was successful on the night thanks to that switch. Didn't work against Frazier, but different things work in different fights against different opponents.

He came unstuck a few times, but the fact that Ali returned with so much of his biggest (arguable) asset and was still such a force in the golden era of Heavyweights shows that he had some nous to go with that outrageous natural talent. Take away Foreman's power, for instance, and I could see him struggling a lot more than Ali did after his exile.

My point is though Chris, that Ali didn't make the choice to fight off the ropes- George and Joe made that decision, and he no choice but to go along with it- he wasn't strong enough to hold them off or back them up, couldn't circle them, and didn't punch hard enough to deter them, so they pushed him on to the ropes and pinned him there, but against George Ali was able to exploit George's weakness of telegraphing his shots, against Joe he just took a beating. The arguement for his adaptability also loses credibility in that despite losing his legs, he never really changed his style of defence, i.e he didn't learn how to cover up and slip and parry shots from a philli shell or cross armed defencce, so he took a lot of unnecessary shots as a result. I would go as far as saying that rather than adapt he just became reliant on his uncanny ability to absorb punishment. he certainly didn't seem to adapt over the trilogy of Norton fights, in each of which Norton was able to successfully counter jab him and draw him on to shots.
I have argued before that Ali gets too much credit for a tactical victory in Zaire, and I have seen or heard few arguements that have done anything to dissuade me on this. A great, brave and unexpected performance, certainly, but George was one that choose the tactics.

There's a movie about Winstone that's out at the moment, it's a bit of a B-Movie but it's not the worst watch in the world. Can't remember what it's name is however, will refind it.