Are the technical boxing skills of Jim Driscoll disgustingly archaic?

This. His footwork and defense are rock solid and he makes it look so easy. He never takes an unnecessary step and barely lifts his feet, but easily cuts off his opponent, which explains why he was able to fight 20 round fights. A lot of young guys today could learn from his ring efficiency.

 

I’ve got one of his instructional books, plus the book written by Gareth Harris, one called Peerless Jim which was a fairly short one I believe by a guy called Fred Deakin and just got the book written by Alexander Cordell.

Have you seen the documentary called “Meistr y sgwar”? It’s about two years old and apparently it’s re-airing on September 11th on BBC Wales. I’m wondering if any of our friends over the pond can somehow record it and upload it? I asked them if they’d have it available for viewing in the US and they said it wouldn’t be.

 

Bump, don't let this thread die.

 

not archaic, I still see people fight like that who have little training. We have fighters stop by the gym who compete in boxing and MMA, who don't train much, but take pro fights in both sports. For some reason they like to train once before fighting. Driscoll's movement/technique reminds me of some of them.

I wouldn't be proud if someone watched this video and told me that one of my fighters had the technique of Driscoll. He was probably all right for his time, but I didn't see anything in the video that I'd want to teach.

 

Our fighters (if right handed) will have their left foot in front, they'll almost never square up, If they change levels, they'll do it by bending their knees. Their elbows will be close to their body, they'll push with the opposite foot and move the foot first that is closest to the way they are going. If they move their front foot six inches, they'll move their back foot six inches. Their rear foot will be below their rear shoulder...there is more, but you get the idea. When they vary from any of this, they know it and it is for a purpose. They fight any "style" they're comfortable fighting, but they learn fundamentals and technique first. We might be a bit "snobbish" about our fundamentals and technique.

Our fighters look more like Holyfield, Hagler, Doug Jones, Callum Smith types in the ring. Nobody has ever said that our fighters look like Marciano or Baer. This is not to say that they won't drop their left hand or lead with a hook, but when they do they're aware of what they're doing and the risk. We are not "hard" on our fighters, but they do learn correct fundamentals/technique first. We are not a gym that relies on making money from monthly memberships, most people that start at our place get bored and leave. They don't leave because we're tough on them or beat them up sparring, they just don't want to spend so much time practicing movement and jabbing. They might spend 3 weeks on correct foot movement, stance, and jab before they ever learn anything else. Sorry this got lengthy, but since you have a training background, this should explain what I'm looking for and why I'm not impressed with what I see from Driscoll.

 

That fencing style has shades of Loughran, McFarland, Leonard about it. His jab where kevin points out about him lunging and falling in (I don't think he does) is more of an old style English straight left than a jab. The thumb facing upwards, hip rotation and transference of weight from back to front with the accurate, timed lunge. More powerful and hurtful than a jab and intended to do damage as a power punch or knock an opponent severely off balance rather than probe, range find or set up other punches. @roughdiamond mentioned Bruce Lee being influenced by it, which is true. I think it had it's origins in Okinawa karate, Driscoll's stance is a bit karate/jiu jitsu like as well as a fencing one and it's well known that Lee was influenced by Western boxing and made a key component of his martial philosophy. The one inch punch is similar.

Driscoll though tilts and angles his head down to the right as he rotates into it, giving it extra oomph and making it hard for an opponent to counter him. Mike Spinks used to do something similar when throwing a jab and Mayweather is very effective doing the same thing when throwing his very good jab/straight left to the body, and I don't see anybody criticizing him over it or calling it archaic. It's difficult to pull off accurately though and with the same effectiveness because the larger gloves today have eliminated the point of impact. Jem's technique is great with it though and he utilised as a defensive weapon too.

His footwork is sublime imo. Weight more on the back foot in the mould of a fencer to allow quick shifts, pivots and backward movements to make Robson fall short while already being set or nearly set to immediately counter with that great right hand in the blink of an eye. It allows him to shift and shimmy forward with little effort too to keep Robson in range. His balance is great too, mostly. The odd lurch forward is nothing I haven't seen from great fighters like Duran and Hopkins, and like them Driscoll seems to recover quickly and use the momentum to instinctively fall inside and take it from there. The same with Mayweather and Monzon skipping and sliding back in a straight line with good judgement and quickly firing back with straight rights.

I like the sharpness and speed of his movement from a still position and he looks elegant in the upright position rather than stiff or rigid. The style is old and rarely used but not intrinsically outdated imo. It's that there are effective methods to combat it. Rough mentioned that Driscoll might have been vulnerable to a swarmer and he did indeed have a tough time with the naturally larger and very dirty Freddie Welsh. Welsh's style passes the eye test though and is modern; he was a great fighter and looks good on film. Driscoll supposedly struggled early on to adapt to Welsh's speed and own excellent jab before adjusting and getting himself back into the fight but got frustrated when Welsh began to get underhanded and dirty, and eventually lost his rag and began to exact revenge by repeatedly hitting Welsh low to get himself disqualified. The potential struggle with a good swarmer is style related though and not era related. I still think Driscoll would be highly effective against elite modern technicians, pure boxers, some boxer punchers etc. If anything, plenty of guys might have difficulty dealing with the throwback style. Driscoll was an excellent infighter too and with a high ring IQ and level of athletic talent which would see him fit in fine with an adjustment here or there imo. We can't know for sure, obviously.

Like @ChrisJS said, he just makes it look so easy within his style. I mentioned myself Inna recent thread that he has that air that some great fighters have, as if they're wondering what the opponent is doing in the ring with them, exhibited a bit in the cocky sort of walk he does after disengaging to reset himself.

@BitPlayerVesti said that it's a shame that we don't have footage of the Attell or Moran fights rather than this one, and he's right. Moran looks good on film, Attell though not as much imo.

 

That ended up being far longer and harder work than I intended and I shan't debate it any further as a result, sorry lads. Shot me load on this one. I've spoken to enough knowledgeable people about Driscoll over the years, including a couple of my old trainers (one of who was Billy Thompson, the European lightweight champ in the late forties) and they all think that Jim looked great. Make of it what you will (shrugs). I can see how he might look archaic to a certain mindset even if said person is attuned to boxing technique, I just disagree. It might well be difficult to teach today and I doubt we'll really see it for better or worse.

 

I understand. Thanks for the viewpoint. Sounds about like my dad's training actually. Most guys who come in once just wanna hit the bag hard and feel big. Course they don't last long though.
Like your dad's style!

What do you think of a fighter such as tyson who'd square up for a specific purposes (weight shifting etc.) ?
Tyson was taught that style specifically, my understanding is that the D'Amato style was for a fighter to fight more square and that would equalize his left and right hand power. It worked for Tyson, and it would probably work for another fighter who had good natural gifts and the desire. I don't have a problem with "shifting" as long as it is done with good body mechanics. An example is on the inside, you throw a left and right to the body, and then pivot to the right and throw a left hook. As long as the fighter can keep his feet about the same width and maintain balance, it can work. If I was working on it, I'd have the fighter throw a 4th punch (right uppercut) when practicing, just to make sure the balance hasn't been compromised. I'm open to about anything as long as balance and good body mechanics aren't compromised.

What would you think of a fighter that slugs or boxes 'wrongly' yet achieves exceptional results?
They are fortunate, but they usually run into someone who is close to/or as physically gifted as they are but better schooled. Then they don't do well. I also don't like to see a fighter take unnecessary punishment, I don't understand why someone who is going to box doesn't try to be as good as he can be?