tv announcers give ali so much credit for his flurries..where he missed 90%of punches

[highguard]

hey i was wondering

watching alot of old ali fights you
you tv announcers both in time and later on
going crazy when he would flurry


but am i the only person to watch these flurries carefully

he misses almost every punch he throws,
which guys like frazier, norton, or shavers
usually slip or block


yet the tv people act like he lighting the other guy up


when in reality he is lighting up the air or the guy's gloves

[Boxed Ears]

...Duce?

[divac]

Originally Posted by highguard

hey i was wondering

watching alot of old ali fights you
you tv announcers both in time and later on
going crazy when he would flurry


but am i the only person to watch these flurries carefully

he misses almost every punch he throws,
which guys like frazier, norton, or shavers
usually slip or block


yet the tv people act like he lighting the other guy up


when in reality he is lighting up the air or the guy's gloves

It happens alot with fighters with great handspeed.....
......they throw a multipunch combination where close to everything is off target and the announcers are in complete awe of it......


.....watch HBO's version of Chavez-Taylor.
For great chuncks of the fight, Chavez is either slipping or blocking Taylor's speed flurries, but Lampley and co. call it as if Taylor is landing everything he's throwing.

.....as Chavez nullifies and counters a Taylor ineffective speed flurry with a head snapping effective straight right hand, Lampley goes as far as to call that particular exchange between Chavez and Taylor as brilliant boxing by Taylor.

[Thread Stealer]

So does Compubox for recent fighters.

[highguard]

Originally Posted by divac

It happens alot with fighters with great handspeed.....
......they throw a multipunch combination where close to everything is off target and the announcers are in complete awe of it......


.....watch HBO's version of Chavez-Taylor.
For great chuncks of the fight, Chavez is either slipping or blocking Taylor's speed flurries, but Lampley and co. call it as if Taylor is landing everything he's throwing.

.....as Chavez nullifies and counters a Taylor ineffective speed flurry with a head snapping effective straight right hand, Lampley goes as far as to call that particular exchange between Chavez and Taylor as brilliant boxing by Taylor.

very well put, its good that in the devon alexander vs alexander kapnick
fight, the announcers caught on to that

but yeah in many fights, this is not the case

[Unforgiven]

There's always been a debate over whether four very quick misses to the head is worth more than a hard punch that lands to the body.
Ali was a master at exploiting that confusion.

[zadfrak]

Originally Posted by Thread Stealer

So does Compubox for recent fighters.

Amen.Especially for the house fighter.


And lets not forget how much the judges just absolutely love those flurries when it comes time to write down the winner of a round. 3 or 4 flurries a round is about all it takes to win the round and ignore the other 2:45 of the round. It seems like the opponents defense to block 80% is a complete non-factor when compared to the few punches that actually land clean. And the one's that do land clean really seem to have a minimal physical impact on the opponents, when you think about it.

[DonBoxer]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

...Duce?

[DamonD]

Well, that's just the occupational hazard of calling split-second action. Where you're sat, the angle you have, not being able to go back and watch the footage and so on.

I remember in Holyfield-Bowe II, round 7, the commentators going bananas over an 11-punch combination from Bowe. The fact all but two of them whiffed entirely or hit Holy's guard wasn't noticed in the heat of the moment.

Or the commentary in Holyfield-Ruiz I where, since he was the underdog after all, Ruiz's punches landed were talked up more even when Holyfield would land a shot at the same time (this happened a lot on the jab exchanges).

Hmm...okay, not trying to make out some kind of commentary conspiracy against Holyfield here Just saying that very rapid-fire punching is plainly tougher to call in a split second then heavy ones and twos.

[zadfrak]

One of the big warts with the flurrie type guys is the occasional opponent that works to make them flurrie and diminish their gastank. They force those speedy combos & force them to work at a higher pace and invite the 8 punch flurries.

Examples would be some of those Breland fights. The opponents wanted the flurries and then they'd capitalize when he took a breather immediately after. Jim Watt did a real good job of it against Howard Davis too, come to think of it. I always thought Norton did a real good job of inviting those Ali flurries and really did a top notch job of rarely getting hit with the followups. It just seems to be a tactic that is never acknowledged and seldom appreciated===nowhere near the extent the boxers get for making the homerun hitters swing and miss.

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by DamonD

Well, that's just the occupational hazard of calling split-second action. Where you're sat, the angle you have, not being able to go back and watch the footage and so on.

I remember in Holyfield-Bowe II, round 7, the commentators going bananas over an 11-punch combination from Bowe. The fact all but two of them whiffed entirely or hit Holy's guard wasn't noticed in the heat of the moment.

Or the commentary in Holyfield-Ruiz I where, since he was the underdog after all, Ruiz's punches landed were talked up more even when Holyfield would land a shot at the same time (this happened a lot on the jab exchanges).

Hmm...okay, not trying to make out some kind of commentary conspiracy against Holyfield here Just saying that very rapid-fire punching is plainly tougher to call in a split second then heavy ones and twos.

It speaks of why it's often better to watch a fight with the sound off...so you can't hear what they're saying.

[Stevie G]

Originally Posted by highguard

hey i was wondering

watching alot of old ali fights you
you tv announcers both in time and later on
going crazy when he would flurry


but am i the only person to watch these flurries carefully

he misses almost every punch he throws,
which guys like frazier, norton, or shavers
usually slip or block


yet the tv people act like he lighting the other guy up


when in reality he is lighting up the air or the guy's gloves

A lot of those punches also connected. Maybe in a glancing fashion,some of them,but enough to score points.

[red cobra]

Quality punches vs pitty-pat flurries was what decided the FOTC.

[Meast]

Happens all the time. Bradley vs Kotelnik was a good recent example

[gentleman jim]

I used to think that the old timers were primitive compared to thier modern counterparts because they didn't throw combos and flurries like many modern day fighters. Over time I came to appreciate thier subtle skills more and more. Many of the oldtime fighters learned to time thier shots and place them right getting the proper leverage and full bodyweight behind them instead of swinging fast but hitting air or gloves. Watching films of men Like Jack Johnson and Charley Burley helped me to reevaluate thier abilities. No wasted motion. Each punch timed well and perfectly placed. I love watching films of Joe Louis dismantle an opponent with 2 or 3 perfectly placed shots. Or Dempsey whipping in a pair of blinding hooks from a short distance. These guys knew what they were doing. Too many people came to believe that Ali's way of fighting was the only way to win and that it was superior to everyone else's way. Not true. As Ali got older and his legs weren't the same this became apparent. Not a rap on the man who is arguably the best HW of them all but a reminder that there's more to the Sweet Science than speed and flash. The old timers knew what they were doing...And did it quite well.