We’ve all heard it screamed from the rooftops over the past decade or so. Fighters who often play it safe and seem to be doing all they can to avoid getting hit has made them become ostracized in boxing, with this style of fighting often deteriorating the entertaining element of boxing fights.

Beneath all the complaints lies an uncomfortable truth that has not been addressed; the fact that fighters of previous generations faced similar styles of boxing without issue.

Plenty of arguments can be made to support or oppose the “running” fighter. In one manner of speaking, these fighters tend to avoid long-term damage that could affect their careers.

On the other hand, no one can objectively state those styles are anything close to eye-catching or appealing to watch.

Yet for a long time, boxing has bred different sort of styles. From the “Mexican style” of fighting, one that is focused on maximizing a fighter’s capacity to deal damage up close, down to the boxer-puncher style which combines the skills of a fighter with that of a more direct form of offense, there is a variety of fighting styles that have been seen in the sport thus far.

It is therefore up to the fighter, but especially their coaching team, to be able to make the adjustments needed to defeat any opponent, though this sort of adaptation appears to be steadily declining as complaints regarding running fighters have gone up while actual solutions to these issues have not surfaced.

This is contrary to what boxing history shows. Argentinian legend Marcos Maidana breaking down an elusive Adrien Broner in 2013 was a testament to this.

At the same time, Floyd Mayweather’s ability to avoid damage throughout the latter portion of his career by using a style that would be considered “running” these days sums up both the benefits and downsides of this style quite well.

Heavyweight (200+ lbs) legend Muhammad Ali himself was known to apply more evasive forms during his career, most prominently when he fought George Foreman in 1974 in the famed Rumble In The Jungle event where he invented the “rope-a-dope” technique ― a defensive technique focused on avoiding danger by using the ropes as momentum.

The core problem with fighters that are often regarded to be running away rather than fighting is not the fact that they are; some boxers will always do what they can to avoid as much damage as possible, just like there will always be fighters that will put themselves into harm’s way in order to able to inflict as many blows as possible on the opponent.

The true issue lingers on why fighters do no longer have the ability to cut off the ring. There is much to say for fighters who employ such a style, with Devin Haney and William Scull most recently receiving the brunt of criticism for running, but it takes above-average footwork and tremendous stamina to move in such a manner.

To be able to hit a fighter out of range, the opposing fighter would need to develop their footwork and jabs accordingly to be able to deal with such styles, as would be expected in a sport where athletes are expected to progress to become considered elite competitors. This approach, referred to as “cutting off the ring”, is vast becoming extinct as more and more fighters seem to fail spectacularly in this task.

This again goes back to past fights where this was never truly considered an issue, only a challenge. Golden Boy Promotions chairman Oscar De La Hoya himself can personally attest to this having been overcome by such an evasive style when he faced Mayweather in 2007, though conquered it another point when he [controversially] defeated one of the best defensive boxers of his time in Pernell Whittaker a decade earlier.

The inability by fighters might be a direct result of the current age of training where cutting weight is becoming much more of a priority, despite the dangers it carries, rather than the actual improvement of a fighter’s skills.

This has ultimately led to a stagnation of sorts in the sport; one that should be addressed as much as the fighters facing accusations of running.

Cutting off the ring is just as important a skill as learning how to stay at a distance. It is not easy to do either, but only one seems to be a skill actually taught within boxing gyms. Logically-speaking, it would take as much effort a “running” fighter learns how to stay at a distance for a fighter to learn how to properly close the distance.

But this has clearly become less of a priority in the boxing gym, leading us to a situation where neither styles truly adapt. A more careful, free-moving fighter has no real challenges, after all, if they never need to adjust because their opponent is incapable or unwilling to cut off the ring.

It creates a true conundrum, but the solutions are really quite straightforward; styles only develop because of opposing styles. Ali’s “rope-a-dope” would not have happened if Foreman’s more aggressive and direct style of boxing wasn’t considered a threat. However, there’s more to The Rumble In The Jungle match than meets the eye.

The 1974 bout is not only significant due to the impact it had on the sport, but due to the effectiveness of both styles. While Foreman was known as a fighter that used his power to overwhelm opponents, requiring him to remain close to his opponent, he was by no means incapable of cutting off the ring.

In fact, Foreman’s what led to Muhammad Ali’s use of the rope-a-dope technique in the first place. Finding success in closing the distance despite Ali’s pinpoint jabs and ring IQ, Ali’s rope-a-dope helped turn the tides in a match that could otherwise have been his undoing. The rope-a-dope heavily tired out Foreman, ultimately helping Ali secure the victory by knockout (KO).

Despite the prominence of this match, it appears the modern-day fighter has not learned any valuable lessons from it. It not only showed Ali make use of a new technique to avoid damage, but the American legend showed his versatility by being able to employ various styles, including the ability to remain at a distance and avoid taking unnecessary damage, the “hit and not get hit” principle often wrongly associated with fighters that solely box from the outside.

Ali knew how to adapt accordingly when needed, while Foreman’s greatest failure was not knowing how to overcome Ali’s unique defensive rope-a-dope technique ― a technique still difficult to properly fight against or employ. In a rematch that never arrived, things might have gone differently as Foreman had already been well-capable of cutting of the ring and could have potentially found a solution to Ali’s rope-a-dope with the right approach and coaching.

Now it’s time for the modern fighter to learn how to do the same. Fighters that are considered to be running can always be taught, if the opposing fighter takes the steps to learn how to deal with such styles.

At the same time, evasive fighters will need to learn how to become better offensively if their styles are countered, creating for a positive back-and-forth that should see the various styles in boxing evolve rather than stagnate.

The saying “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” by Spanish philosopher George Santayana therefore perfectly sums up the state of boxing today where past fights are held up as examples of the epitome boxing but are not actually learned from.

That despite the plentitude of fights held in both the recent and distant past that could help fighters find strategies to beat any style, especially those pertaining to out-boxers or “runners”.