During the opening moments of Saturday's Jaron "Boots" Ennis-Uisma Lima 154-lb. bout, Boots fought in the orthodox stance. After a minute, he switched to southpaw. As soon as the switch happened, Lima started tagging him with straight left hands. But then Boots returned fire and they traded heavy artillery. In an exchange, Boots landed an enormous, winging left hand that instantly stunned Lima. Boots then followed up with a perfectly placed right hook to the chin, one that didn't even have his full force behind it; Lima hit the canvas. Lima would go down again later in the round and the fight was quickly stopped after Lima made it to his feet a second time, with Ennis unloading as Lima was trapped on the ropes.
That first knockdown sequence illustrated the multiple facets that Boots possesses in the ring. He showed the ferocity of a big puncher, but the knockdown blow occurred from an almost surgically precise right hook. Even in a moment when bombs were flying, Ennis had the focus and poise to drop the perfect punch. That right hook more than anything else in the short fight impressed me the most; that was a finisher's punch. A lot of people can hurt a guy, but how many can take a little steam off a shot during a period of high adrenaline to land the coup de grace?
 |
| Photo courtesy of Matchroom Boxing |
I have one important question regarding Boots and his ability to switch stances: Is he Terence Crawford or Danny Jacobs? By that I mean, did he switch because he saw something or knew something, like Crawford does, or was he switching just to switch, which is always a criticism I had of Jacobs. Just because one can switch, it doesn't make it the right move.
Boots spends a lot of time fighting in both stances. To this point I'm not sure which stance is his best and I'm curious to know if he has a level of understanding about his own strengths and weaknesses. When evaluating Crawford, I always knew that he turned lefty when he wanted to be more defensively responsible. But I have yet to discern Ennis' patterns. Is he a gifted athletic puncher who can do all sorts of crazy stuff in the ring, or is he a boxing master who understands what will and will not work for himself or his opponents? Can one be both?
To be determined.
***
Every now and then you'll hear someone in boxing, usually a fighter, but occasionally a trainer, proudly boast that he doesn't watch tape of an opponent. Although these bold pronouncements are often met with disbelief and ridicule, I believe that there is a little something to this method of madness. I will never advocate for not studying an opponent, but make no mistake, the tape can play tricks on an observer and lead to a false sense of security.
Case and point, in Saturday's Alexis Barriere-Guido Vianello fight, Vianello fought in a style that I had not seen him ever utilize in the ring. Barriere was supposed to be the puncher in the fight and Vianello had often featured his legs, hand speed and craftiness to win his big fights.
Yet on Saturday, Vianello fought as the flat-footed slugger. He didn't concede the pocket or rely on movement. He methodically marched forward behind big shots. It's like he suddenly morphed into Anthony Joshua or Martin Bakole. He was there to take Barriere out.
There's no doubt that Barriere and his team were spooked. Barriere, usually a front-foot slugger himself, had to resort to being a counterpuncher. And while he got some good work done, especially in the third round, by the fourth, he was sent to the canvas after a flurry of power punches. One round later, Vianello ended things with a cuffing right hand.
It's unusual to see a fighter at the advanced stages of his career utilize a new style and do so with such success (Fury in the second Wilder fight is another recent example). Yet Vianello shocked Barriere with his audacious play. Vianello looked like a completely different fighter in the ring and made a big statement in the heavyweight division.
What we thought we knew about Vianello was wrong. The tape can often paint an incomplete picture, an important point to remember about matchups. There is often a wide gulf of uncertainty in how a fight may play out. For the "styles make fights" crowd, here was an example of a guy completely junking his past style and obliterating all conventional wisdom about what was supposed to occur in this matchup. Just remember, we often know far less about boxing than we think we do.
***
Although Ennis-Lima was mocked online after the card ended as an example of poor matchmaking, I'll say this: the event played well for the Philadelphia crowd in the arena. They loved how ferociously Boots went after and finished Lima. That heavyweight fight between Barriere and Vianello produced the goods. They loved the daredevil performance from Philly's Dennis Thompson in his win against Sean Diaz. Another Philadelphian, Tahmir Smalls, produced a couple of oohs and aahs from the crowd during his competitive fight against Jose Roman.
It was a boisterous crowd on Saturday night and they got their entertainment. Sure, in a perfect world, Lima would have put up more resistance. But the Philadelphia fighters showed up and delivered. Boots was electric. Thompson and Smalls were easily in against their best opponents, and both performed well. If Boots-Lima had followed a drab, one-sided undercard, I bet the feeling in the crowd would have been much different. But those in Philly received value for their money. They went home happy.
