Good/Great Fighters who can't Adapt

Past or present.

Just because a fighter is very good or even great, it doesn't mean they can adapt to another fighters style in the ring. Who, due to sheer talent, was able to be very effective without having the ability to adapt when presented with something new/unexpected in the ring.

Interesting one, I think the "prime" Foreman is an example. Big ol' slow lumbering Foreman, wasn't particularly smart in what he did, mind you he was very effective in what he did do, so much so that people seriously struggled to stop what he had coming forward.

The older Foreman that made a comeback was much smarter despite not having the same kind of stamina and maybe less power.

Ken Norton. Great against boxers, absolutely dreadful against punchers.

I think Khan has shown an inability to adapt, or certainly in engaging in wrong type of fight against punchers.

Hatton fought one way.

Katsidis, too

Rios

Tommy Hearns. If he fought smart he'd be talked about as one of the best boxers ever. As it is, he's often thought of as the worst of the Four Kings (which is still pretty good!)

Tommy Hearns didn't need to adapt............Outboxed everyone he fought!!

Think we need to make some sort of distinction between a willingness to adapt, and the physical ability to do so.

We might be looking at Carl Froch this way in a few years' time, much as someone quite rightly mentioned Hatton earlier.

But is it an unwillingness to adapt, or the adoption of a single style for all occasions based on the fighter's strengths?

Nigel Benn...despite actually being a decent boxer in his youth, as his professional career progressed he seemed unable to turn off the switch that sent him into "tear up" mode...or as suggested above, was he simply unwilling to do so?

Cast a Shadow wrote:Think we need to make some sort of distinction between a willingness to adapt, and the physical ability to do so.

We might be looking at Carl Froch this way in a few years' time, much as someone quite rightly mentioned Hatton earlier.

But is it an unwillingness to adapt, or the adoption of a single style for all occasions based on the fighter's strengths?

why make the distinction? An inability to adapt is the same as an unwillingness in my eyes. Neither the fighter who can't adapt because they don't know how, nor the fighter who just never will are adapting.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

Cast a Shadow wrote:Think we need to make some sort of distinction between a willingness to adapt, and the physical ability to do so.

We might be looking at Carl Froch this way in a few years' time, much as someone quite rightly mentioned Hatton earlier.

But is it an unwillingness to adapt, or the adoption of a single style for all occasions based on the fighter's strengths?

why make the distinction. An inability to adapt is the same as an unwillingness in my eyes. Neither the fighter who can't adapt because they don't know how, nor the fighter who just never will are adapting.

Nope, Hatton is a prime example. After being put down by Magee, he changed tactic and choose to get in and out instead of staying in range. Against Tackie, he realised he wasn't going to stop him and stuck to some very smsart boxing rather than blowing himself out....against Manny, he charged in headfirst (literally) despite being given a very poignat rminder of why he shouldn't.

Hatton COULD be cautious when he chose to...it's just he didn't do it very often.

Hi Dave - I think Benn tempered it slightly after the Eubank loss and going up to 168, but it was always there needing to be constantly kept under control, and you could argue he lost it (when he probably needed to) vs McLellan.

His career would suggest there was some sort of acknowledgement of this as a failing and a genuine, though not wholy successful, attempt to remedy it.

Now Arturo Gatti I think could and only ever tried to fight one way, and is a great shout for this thread IMO.

DAVE667 wrote:Nigel Benn...despite actually being a decent boxer in his youth, as his professional career progressed he seemed unable to turn off the switch that sent him into "tear up" mode...or as suggested above, was he simply unwilling to do so?

He seemed to adapt when he fought Henry Wharton. Boxed on the back foot throughout the fight and outpointed him by a distance.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

Cast a Shadow wrote:Think we need to make some sort of distinction between a willingness to adapt, and the physical ability to do so.

We might be looking at Carl Froch this way in a few years' time, much as someone quite rightly mentioned Hatton earlier.

But is it an unwillingness to adapt, or the adoption of a single style for all occasions based on the fighter's strengths?

why make the distinction. An inability to adapt is the same as an unwillingness in my eyes. Neither the fighter who can't adapt because they don't know how, nor the fighter who just never will are adapting.

I think there is a physical and natural dimension to this that might be overlooked.

A fighter who is seriously short on speed, power, punch resistance, whatever at his level of competition is always going to be limited in the way they fight. Even if they understand that a different approach might be needed in a particualar fight, they either cannot physically pull off the gameplan that would beat that opponent, or the risk of knockout dictates the strategy. As they say, styles make fights...

Cast a Shadow wrote:Hi Dave - I think Benn tempered it slightly after the Eubank loss and going up to 168, but it was always there needing to be constantly kept under control, and you could argue he lost it (when he probably needed to) vs McLellan.

His career would suggest there was some sort of acknowledgement of this as a failing and a genuine, though not wholy successful, attempt to remedy it.

Now Arturo Gatti I think could and only ever tried to fight one way, and is a great shout for this thread IMO.

When Gatti went with Buddy as a trainer he developed a jab and some pretty slick boxing skills and footwork. He used it brilliantly in the last Ward fight to score a wide UD.

Cast, after the Ward trilogy, didn't McGirt try and get Gatti to box and didn't he actually implement this in a couple of fights?

Even Ponce De Leon caused some amusement amongst commentators when he demonstrated his "boxing" skills.

What Az said...couldn't remember the chronology of it but I do recall Gatti "dancing" around the ring at some stage

Personally, although he doesn't adapt mid fight, I think Froch has adapted during his career. He's been pretty wild in the past, then against the known power of Abraham he pumped out the jab and moved efficiently.

He was loading up a lot against Ward, looking for the big shot because he'd been talking about how much more powerful he was in the build up, then against Bute he came in looking leaner (the bit of back muscles that comes out the side next to the chest when you're looking at someone from the front, whatever it's called, looked massive in comparison to usual) and was putting punches together.

Tyson wasn't a great adapter. However he rarely needed to.

Against Hearns, it was the opponent who had to adapt or lose.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tommy Hearns didn't need to adapt............Outboxed everyone he fought!!

The problem was that he didn't always elect to box...he adapted to fighting and his chin didn't adapt to getting hit.

chisora just keeps coming and coming in the same style, even if he is getting tagged with heavy shots, not sure ive seen him take a step backwards in any fight.

Aye, I agree that with Hearns, it was never really about adapting, more just about the fact that he didn't have the best whiskers and an absolutely dreadful lack of survival instincts. In terms of his style, it was others who had to adapt to him, really; leaving the war with Hagler aside, as it was too short a fight to draw comparison, nobody managed to win more rounds in a fight than Tommy managed until Barkley 1992, a whole dozen years after Tommy's first world title.

The sad thing for Hearns is that he did seem to have upped his ring IQ and learned how to survive a little bit later on in his career (the fights against Hill, Kinchen and Leonard II showing this), but it was just a little too late to really make up for the losses to Leonard and Hagler, against either of whom a victory would have made him one of the immortals.

Roy Jones Jr, he never needed to adapt until he lost his reflexes and punch resistance now he just fights the same way but without them which makes him a punch bag.

88Chris05 wrote:Aye, I agree that with Hearns, it was never really about adapting, more just about the fact that he didn't have the best whiskers and an absolutely dreadful lack of survival instincts. In terms of his style, it was others who had to adapt to him, really; leaving the war with Hagler aside, as it was too short a fight to draw comparison, nobody managed to win more rounds in a fight than Tommy managed until Barkley 1992, a whole dozen years after Tommy's first world title.

The sad thing for Hearns is that he did seem to have upped his ring IQ and learned how to survive a little bit later on in his career (the fights against Hill, Kinchen and Leonard II showing this), but it was just a little too late to really make up for the losses to Leonard and Hagler, against either of whom a victory would have made him one of the immortals.

Agreed Chris, but I think that he gets a bit overrated as a pure boxer with regard to defence- a boxer of his calibre shouldn't have got hit as much as Hearns, esp given his reach and movement , and in terms of ring generalship or tactical nous.. Truss's " he never got outboxed arguement is too simplistic for me- when does boxing become fighting, and visa versa? He lost to Leonard because Leonard adapted and beat him- does that not count as boxing? No one beat him at jabbing and moving, but sorry there's more to boxing than that. Leonard said prior to their first fight that Stewart had made him a bit robotic, as there's an little truth in that. he was very,very good esp at LMW, but He wAsn't without fault.