If you could have one fighter fight for your life?

[Fitz]

(01-12-2017 07:50 PM)Dickagon Wrote:  Marg had no technique and he won a title in this era. Maidana sucks and look at what he did to Floyd.

(01-12-2017 09:39 PM)Spyder Wrote:  Harry Greb looked ridiculous shadow boxing, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't fight. That's like using the video of Mike Tyson falling off of the hoverboard as proof that fighters have declined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Eiogl9ziA

No, I'm not saying he couldn't fight or sucked, I'm just using it as an example on how boxers have progressed and how it looked back then. Nobody will say anything about the video despite never seeing him actually fight, and the reputation he had. But if that was the same video and style except with a current fighter, people would mock him, talk about how his elbow is at a right angle when he sets up his right etc.....

Now Joe Louis isn't as bad, but watching him hit the heavy bag, people would comment that he throws slow and combination punching isn't great. I remember watching a similar video of Cotto years back with him hitting a bag similar, and was criticised for looking slow and slugging.
But back to the Louis video, the sparring part....he would be told by the internet that he keeps his hand low and it's careless. Open to the overhand right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0yqDswICM

I'm not criticising any of the fighters, they were all great for their time. I just kid of agree with black that skills have picked up over the decade mainly post 1930's.
Why should it be surprising? Athletes invest so much more time than they did back in the day back then.
The past in most things is usually a great stepping block to improve in the years ahead.

[and the NEW]

(01-12-2017 07:50 PM)Dickagon Wrote:  Marg had no technique and he won a title in this era. Maidana sucks and look at what he did to Floyd.

And Fitz, could you have picked a worse example than Greb? This guy was known as the antithesis of a stylist.

BTW, watch Usyk shadowbox, a weapon in the ring, looks like trash shadowboxing. Lomachenko looks pretty average shadowboxing too. These guys aren't stylists, they are super practical.

As for Joe Louis. Only people that would tell you he keeps his hands too low are idiots. Watch Rigondeaux, his lead hand is also low. But only when he is at distance, and he hops (Louis shuffles) to get out of range when the opponent attacks. Keeping the hand low helps to judge distance and baits your opponent in. As soon as they get into the killzone, the hand comes up, or you can roll with the shots. But often you can hop (shuffle) out of range and it provides you counter opportunities. Ollie's mate Parker does the same thing.

---

(01-12-2017 10:20 AM)ViperSniper Wrote:  I like this! Look at Kovalev, he is one of, if not the best fighter at the moment, yet there are other fighters more skilled and talented. Kovalev may not be flashy but has an understanding of the game.

The Eastern Europeans generally are really changing the game. Tszyu started the movement of the style into the professional ranks a long time ago, but it has taken a wave of them to really showcase it. It is almost unnatural, so you have to have it drilled into you since you are young, which is what happens to them over there in their boxing academies. They are effectively counter-punching pressure-fighters. It is paradoxical.

As for Kovalev, he does something very unique, so nobody can deal with him. He is a pressure fighter, that keeps you at the end of his punches. Nearly all pressure fighters do so by getting inside. Kovalev's other huge advantage, is his power. It makes it very hard for guys to slip inside on him while he is pressuring. I thought Ward was going to do it fairly easily, but even he struggled to do it and most of the times when he did, Kovalev tied him up well (Ward only got a bit of decent body work done inside). IMO, Kovalev will come apart if he faces a bull that can take his punch and makes him go backwards (that could be Beterbiev, but it may not be).

[blackbelt2003]

Sorry guys, but I massively disagree.

There is a world of difference between Maidana and Margarito (who have primitive styles but at least a basic rudimentary knowledge of how to throw a punch properly, cut off the ring and defend themselves) and a guy like Jack Dempsey.

You only have to watch a video of Jack Dempsey stumbling forwards against Gene Tunney to see that he had no clue how to cut off a ring. Tunney was using basic footwork but it was new and innovative back then. Guys like Dempsey had never had to do that before. Bring Dempsey forward in time fifty years and nearly every pro, from basic to champion, had a knowledge of how to move laterally. Nearly every fighter he went in with would be able to move their feet at least a little like Tunney. He'd barely win a fight.

And similarly, Tunney wouldn't be used to anyone giving HIM a bit of movement or cutting off the ring properly.


In modern times, even a basic, 'primitive' style fighter like the aforementioned Maidana and MAyorga had a knowledge of how to cut a ring off. Their 'basic' footwork makes them look like Muhammad Ali compared to Dempsey.



And there isn't an 'automatic cut off point'. It was a developing period, with old-style fighters having to at least adapt their styles to cope with better boxers. It wasn't an overnight case of 'this guy is from 1939 so he's crap and this guy is from 1940 so he's modern'.


Although the IBHOF does distinguish between old and modern fighters using WW2 as the cut off point. Interesting!



Look, what I'm saying isn't rocket science. You only have to look at the videos to see the skills gap. I'm not talking 'flashy' styles like Roy Jones or Floyd Mayweather. I'm talking basics. Look at how wide their punches are. At how off balance they are when punching. The videos are limited but you can still SEE the punches with your own eyes. Stick a Harry Greb or Stanley Ketchel in the ring with a half decent modern pro and they just would not know how to catch up to them, or understand why they are getting nailed with straight rights down the pipe as they load up with their swings.


However, one point I will make is how good old-timers were at inside work and clinching. Because the rules were more lenient, and they were less skilled on the outside, they developed a much better inside game than later eras. Their clinching and wrestling abilities were much more pronounced.




Black

[and the NEW]

I agree broadly Black, that skills developed over time.

But you tell me this guy is rudimentary. This is a fucking all around weapon of a boxer. Precision timing, impeccable judgement of the distance, great footwork, counter punching, combination punching, inside fighting, iron chin. The man had it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETDzw3cv_YA

[blackbelt2003]

Tunney himself wasn't rudimentary...he actually had quite a modern style.

But the guys around him he was beating DIDN'T! That's my point. Just look at the video you posted above and don't watch Tunney...watch some of the punches the guys are throwing at him! They are literally jumping in with jabs! No wonder his modern-ish style worked so well! I just finished watching his fight with Carpentier and it's the same story. Carpentier, known for being a beautiful boxer, actually had quite a primitive style compared to Tunney. He is actually jumping in the air as he throws his one-two, sometimes, and his feet are all over the place.


Look at his fights with Dempsey. Tunney, as I stated above, moves well...good, lateral movement and judgement of distance and timing. This was something completely new and innovative for the time, and marked Tunney as something of a genius.


But fast forwards fifty years and MOST fighters can do what Tunney was doing, skillwise (although, granted, not all would have his natural power, timing or chin). Imagine Tunney in with a guy using the same technique and skill set as himself? He would never have experienced that before.



The 1920's and 1930's was a big time for development in boxing. The old time fighters of the 1910's gradually made the transition to the modern-style fighters of the 1940's onwards. It wasn't an overnight thing, henceforth you get stand out guys like Tunney, Pep, Louis and others who had both the modern-style technique and the power/chin/heart to become greats even though their roots lay in a primitive era.

This isn't something I'm just randomly making up...am I not the only one who can see it on video? Sure, the video is limited, but you can still see the improvements over two decades just by watching them and taking off rose-tinted glasses. From Jack Johnson to Jack Dempsey to Gene Tunney to Max Schmeling to Joe Louis...you can see the technical game developing. It's lovely to watch, TBH.



Black

[and the NEW]

Judgement of the distance wasn't new and innovative in the 1920s, it was an essential part of boxing, had been since the 1890s (30 years earlier). But to be able to judge it that well, use the lateral movement, combine it with combination punching and great timing, that is something 99.9% of modern fighters can't do. That is special in any era.

Which fighters combine it all that fluently today. Not many, infact I struggle to think of more than a handful who can do it all at once. They may be able to do certain things great, but they are rarely that well rounded. Doesn't matter if they are fighting a rudimentary pressure fighter or not.

What Tunney was doing reminds me a lot of what Lomachenko did to Koasicha.

[the ollie reed fan club]

(01-13-2017 07:03 AM)and the NEW Wrote:  Judgement of the distance wasn't new and innovative in the 1920s, it was an essential part of boxing, had been since the 1890s (30 years earlier). But to be able to judge it that well, use the lateral movement, combine it with combination punching and great timing, that is something 99.9% of modern fighters can't do. That is special in any era.

Which fighters combine it all that fluently today. Not many. Doesn't matter if they are fighting a rudimentary pressure fighter or not.

Agreed, and add in those intangible qualities that the old timers brought like hunger, desire, the ability to fight 15 rounds and just how dirty the sport was. Can you imagine some of the modern diva's having to deal with the really filthy tactics those old timers used to implement?

It' so hard to compare era's. The overall game has evolved quite a bit since the 20's and I'll agree with others, I think it peaked in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Dempsey looks slow as molasses and his footwork is crude, his punches can look a little flailing in parts, but fuck me that dude used to turn over that right hand like nothing you see today.

[blackbelt2003]

I also think it peaked in the 1950's-70's.

The emphasis today seems to be on power, fitness and lateral movement, and a lot of fighters in the new millennium seem to have lost the ability to fight on the inside, the ability to trade (as opposed to just defending and pot shotting in turn) and the innate toughness that comes from doing 15 rounds twenty times in a career.


Dempsey was tough as old boots, but his right hand lost a lot of power from a textbook point of view because, like a lot of guys from his era, he used to lift his right foot off the ground when throwing it because he fell forwards so much. It's testament to his raw power that even with his lack of technique he was able to cause so much damage in there! He is undoubtedly one of the hardest, coolest, most menacing guys ever to set foot in a boxing ring.



Black

---

(01-13-2017 07:03 AM)and the NEW Wrote:  Judgement of the distance wasn't new and innovative in the 1920s, it was an essential part of boxing, had been since the 1890s (30 years earlier). But to be able to judge it that well, use the lateral movement, combine it with combination punching and great timing, that is something 99.9% of modern fighters can't do. That is special in any era.

Which fighters combine it all that fluently today. Not many, infact I struggle to think of more than a handful who can do it all at once. They may be able to do certain things great, but they are rarely that well rounded. Doesn't matter if they are fighting a rudimentary pressure fighter or not.

What Tunney was doing reminds me a lot of what Lomachenko did to Koasicha.

Judgement of the distance has obviously ALWAYS been a part of boxing...but it developed massively in that specified period. Look at the stance of the fighters in the 1920's. The old fighters were still using the stance with the weight on the back foot, the head and shoulders back and the hands low. They would then fall forwards as they threw their right hand...it wasn't any where near as hard to judge that shot as in the more modern style with the weight more evenly balanced between both feet.

Dempsey was an aggressive, come forward fighter but even he fought with his weight on the back foot. Their right hands were easier to see coming. That's why Joe Louis was so successful...his punches were so much shorter than many other fighters because his weight was spread more evenly. Old-school guys couldn't judge the distance any more because they weren't used to it.



Black

[and the NEW]

(01-13-2017 07:19 AM)blackbelt2003 Wrote:  Judgement of the distance has obviously ALWAYS been a part of boxing...but it developed massively in that specified period. Look at the stance of the fighters in the 1920's. The old fighters were still using the stance with the weight on the back foot, the head and shoulders back and the hands low. They would then fall forwards as they threw their right hand...it wasn't any where near as hard to judge that shot as in the more modern style with the weight more evenly balanced between both feet.

Dempsey was an aggressive, come forward fighter but even he fought with his weight on the back foot. Their right hands were easier to see coming. That's why Joe Louis was so successful...his punches were so much shorter than many other fighters because his weight was spread more evenly. Old-school guys couldn't judge the distance any more because they weren't used to it.

Black

The stance of Louis is still used today to define how you should be slightly off centre. I've heard Roach and BHOP reference Louis when teaching boxing fundamentals. Roach learnt it off Eddie Futch, who trained in the same gym as Louis and sparred him at times. Futch was the GURU and he learnt most of it from the solid fundamentals of the old timers. The difference is guys try to look good now there is tape, the older timers only cared about practicality, same as the Eastern Europeans. Subtle skills don't look good, but they are seriously difficult and time consuming to acquire. I should know, I was as fast as hell, so I was all flash. I soon learnt the art when I was put in against master boxers that I couldn't hit even though they were right infront of me! That art is lost on most modern fighters. I can't count how many kids ask me how I increase speed, purely because they want to look flashy. They don't appreciate the nuances today.

As far as weight on the back foot making it easier to judge what was coming and reducing power. Tell that to Erislandy Lara, that is his bread and butter. It makes an opponent believe he is outside the killzone, when infact he isn't.

Anyways Black, I agree with you that there were more rudimentary fighters back in the day. And boxing skills broadly didn't peak (and plateau) until the 50s. But the pool of fighters back then was much greater, and the cream from the 20s to the 50s were still the cream. They had natural ability and fundamentals that can match the best of today. On that last point, we can disagree. But I quickly want to revisit that plateau period, I honestly think we are now on the upward trend again, the recent introduction of the Cuban and Eastern European styles has revolutionalised boxing and is taking it to a new level, we are seeing styles we have rarely seen before, and those styles mix up the matchups we are going to see dramatically. I am truly excited and anticipate the next decade of boxing, whether or not it is losing mainstream interest. You can bet your bottom dollar that boxing will be back, and these skills will be referenced in another 100 years time.

[blackbelt2003]

Joe Louis' 'off-centre' technique (as I always understood it) refers to the fact that he was able to put his weight forwards onto the front foot when throwing power shots and pulling on to the back foot slightly when jabbing or getting ready to counter....that's what I mean about having his weight more evenly spread as opposed to just all on the back foot like many fighters from the 1900's-1910's did.

But I agree with you on a lot of the other points, mate. Boxing seems to be in another transition period because of the divide of the amateur/pro codes being unified once again. All those massively successful amateur styles are beginning to be amalgamated with the pro styles to create this lovely Cuban/Russian style. I'm enjoying seeing all this new blood in boxing.



Black