Are Ad Wolgast and Battling Nelson obsolete by modern standards?

Duran also scored one of his nicest KO’s with one.

I can’t believe someone criticized one of these fighters for a lead outside uppercut, and actually got a handful of likes on the post. Shows how unevolved some “analysts” here are. I’m gonna go listen to some electric guitar...

 

Right, and the fact that Battling Nelson was notoriously subpar at the "not getting hit" part makes me question how well he'd fare in later eras. Does that seem unfair to you?

 

Fair but the likes of Gatti, Pacman, Hamed, Froch, Bowe, et al all had generally successful careers with a negligible ability to avoid getting hit as well.

Rock hard, defensive nuffies have and will continue to excel as long as boxing exists.

 

Carl Froch was also rubbish in this aspect of the game. So was Arturo Gatti.

 

And when somebody brings up Mayorga, I watch this video and realize that he was athletic, moved well and had decent technique. He wasn't some stiff, slow, late comer to boxing who just fought in an era when his competition was worse then him.

This content is protected

 

I don't think that they would do as well under the modern rule set, because you would only have to get past them for twelve rounds, but I can see no reason why they could not have considerable success.

 

I'm sure lots of slow, stuff, unathletic, people that moved poorly and have bad technique could fight 40 round wars.

 

Sometimes I don't think that many boxing fans understand what they are looking at, and I mean that with as much consideration and respect as I can muster. When you are analyzing technique and skill, the textbook is a good place to start, but the why is generally more important than the how.

I grew up watching the fights from the Olympic Auditorium; they were shown on television after the live event. I always saw the fights knowing who had won, so I was free to focus on why he won and why the other guy lost. I trained, as a young guy, in a gym with two top ten bantams, one of whom won a title in his fifth try. There was another bantam there that made the Olympic team and stopped a very highly regarded guy to win a world title. The man that taught me subsequently trained his son to titles at 35, 47, and 54. I have taught boxing for 25 years.

You can distill the essentials of boxing technique down to three things. First, feel where your weight is at all times and understand how your movements affect how it shifts. Second, understand distance and how to control it. Third, know the value of position and be able to use your feet to effectively achieve it. This directly ties to the first point.

If you understand and master these three things you can fight with your hands behind your back. A pretty fighter is pleasant to watch but, at the end, end is all about maximizing effectiveness while minimizing effort.

 

When your fighting up to 45 rounds you find ways to conserve energy during bouts that aren't pretty on the eye but effective like standing up straight with hands down at times when out of range.

 

Gatti seems like a reasonable analogy. Managed to have a good career, imo against the odds, but his shortcomings were well documented (and brutally exposed). And he’s certainly nowhere close to making anyone’s all-time greats list.

 

So you don't have to actually hit the other guy, sensei?

 

Like I wrote above, Gatti seems like a good analogy. But despite their various faults, I don’t think lightening fast guys like Pacquiao, and Hamed, or even Bowe (occasionally reckless or apathetic but his defensive shortcomings seem to be grossly exaggerated on this board) really belong in the same conversation.

 

It kind of all goes together. You can't hit him without those things because the actual hitting is the least important part of landing a punch.

 

Nelson and Wolgast's limitations were also apparent, loosing fights at the time, while they were still very good.

 

A+ post