BoxRec

Terry D- I still don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

The examples that you give support what I am saying.
Williams/Harrison/Sprott/Skelton are all roughly even fighters. So naturally they have each had their moments. If the fighters are close in ability, then yes their styles can be a determining factor.

The 1980's heavyweights? Holmes and Tyson were by far the best, even though they had vastly different styles. Each were able to dominate fighters of different styles.

The next group behind (The alphabet soup boys -Tubbs,Smith,Weaver Witherspoon,Page,Dokes,Thomas etc.) all had their ups and downs.
They were all pretty even in ability. They almost always won when they fought someone of far less ability (regardless of styles), lost when they fought Holmes or Tyson (who had very different styles), and had mixed results when they fought another "alphabet soup boy".
It was when they fought each other that their style mattered the most, because that is when their ability was about even.

The Jones/Barrera/Morales fights were not that surprising. Morales and Barrera were very even, and Jones was a level behind them. However, Jones matched up favorably style wise with Barrera and thus was able to beat him. However, Jones was at both a style disadvantage and an ability disadvantage against Morales and was beaten easily.
Morales and Barrera matched up even both stylewise and ability wise and not surprisingly had 3 very competitive fights.

The A beats B and B beats C method usually works. You notice it more when it doesn't. If you picked this randomly with hundreds of fights, you would see this. It works a fairly high % of the time. ( I would say unscientifically at least 75% of the time.)

I can point out countless times when it does work. Here are a few:
-Lewis beat Morrison,Morrison beat Ruddock, and surprise, Lewis beat Morrison.
-Ali beat Liston. Liston beat Patterson. Surprise, Ali beat Patterson.
-Ali beat Cooper, who beat London. Surprise, Ali beat London.
-Ali beat Patterson, who beat Chuvalo. Surprise, Ali beat Chuvalo.
Seldom does anyone say anything about these results. No one thinks anything of it when the formula does work. People are much more likely to notice it when it doesn't work.

As for Ali and Frazier, yes Frazier's style was tough for Ali. However, it was his ability that made it even tougher. As mentioned Ali didn't have nearly as much trouble with Chuvalo,Quarry, and Bonavena. Why is this? Because Ali was better than Frazier, but the gap was much closer than the ability gap between Ali and Chuvalo,Quarry, and Bonavena.

I am sorry that I didn't mention the phase of a career when doing this. If a fight happens when one fighter is past it or is very green then it really doesn't apply.

You are missing my key points. -The A beat B, who beat B will beat C method doesn't always work. However, it certainly works more than 50% of the time. I am not talking in "absolutes" as you say. I am talking about probability.

- A lesser fighter can beat a better fighter if he has a "style advantage". However, the lesser fighter will seldom win if he is nowhere near the better fighters level. Their ability has to be remotely close for the lesser fighter to have much of a chance. Otherwise a great fighter would always lose to a tomato can as long as the tomato can has a style advantage. Obviously this isn't often the case. Yes he might have a little more trouble, but he will almost always win.

-Of course styles count. However you have to factor in the ability of the two fighters as well.

I wonder what people who think boxing is a simpleton's sport for savages would make of this thread

I do generally agree with Alp's thinking.

Terry D wrote: However, it is always stimulating to discuss these things in a polite way, it thickens the plot!

That my friend I agree 100%, even though , we will always differ in opinion in the outcome of the Tito vs Forrest fight. Respect and politeness is always greatly appreciated.

Terry D- By some of your comments it's apparent that you don't understand some of my points, even if you think you do.

Also, I don't really even understand what you are trying to say in regard to some of your other comments that you made in your last post.
I think we have talked about this enough and perhaps it's time to move on.

Terry D wrote:Alp, I do. You are basically saying that your method is half right, at best. That is Ok with me, some people go on the proviso that a stopped clock is right twice a day but I prefer a little more science in the prediction of time, and especially the prediction of fights.

Nice discussing with you though.

No, I am saying that it's usually right, as in more than half of the time and less than 100% of the time.

Forrest isnt as good as Hopkins or Wright and he would be fighting Tito at his most comfortable weight for this mythical match i presume. Trinidad would walk through him and brutally stop Forrest in around the tenth round.

Mosely doesn't fight like Delayhoya. He doesn't dance around and boxes from the outside. He likes to jump in and out and throw flurries. This would make him very vulnerable to Tito's left hook. Trinidad hits harder than anyone Mosely has ever fought; Mosely couldnt afford to trade with him like he had a habit of doing with other opponents.
Im going to say Trinidad stops Mosely late but admittingly I'm not totally convinced Mosely wouldn't hustle out a tough decision victory.

Mosley all day. Not only can Shane out box Trinidad, but he can take his punch. Oscar was a tougher fight for Mosley than Trinidad would have been; Oscar is just a better all around fighter than Trinidad. Mosley would make Trinidad look as limited as Oscar made him look, but Mosley wouldn't back down from Trinidad like Oscar did.

I think a knock out is very unlikely. If there were hypothetically a knock out, I think its more likely that Mosley would be the one scoring it. But I think the clear outcome is a Mosley decision.