Boxing Strategies and Tactics - Did it evolve ?

'Strategy' would be the better word for sure and I would suggest that, as communications technology and data manipulation have progressed and become more widespread, the use of the same to devise 'strategy' has become more commonplace.

So, the evolution here has been the growth in use of available tools. Whether this can be seen as sporting progress or not is still another question, in my opinion.

While watching films could help, I honestly don't believe punch stats matter at all. Even if they are accurate, they are as likely to reflect what two fighters did in reaction to each others styles and tactics as they are to define the strategy and tactics that each employed.


Some of the more learned posters on this forum with a greater depth of knowledge about the eras preceding filmed fights (or those in which the filming of fights was limited) will have a better handle on how strategy was devised in these times.

One assumes that, if a pre-fight strategy were considered at all, it would have had to have been devised from written reports, word-of-mouth and, in certain cases, making an effort to attend fights in person to a size up a potential opponent. In the main, however, I suspect they just showed up and worked it out on the night.


All of that said, a lot of lower profile fights today probably still operate on a primary and simple strategy of showing up, with the tactics devised in fight, round-by-round.

I would also hazard that even some high-profile fighters of the modern era do/did not watch recordings of their opponents before meeting them in the ring, and I seem to recall that FMJ actually stated that he did not. If this is true, then there might just be something to the old 'It'll Be Alright On The Night' approach, after all.

 

Hit the nail on the head my pal. Absolutely 100% correct

 

In one on one competitive sports I believe that pre-match strategies and tactics can be overdone. The ability to adjust during the match is often very important.

 

I would not say it evolved, I would say it adapted to distance, glove, shoes and rule changes.

 

I suppose one should never say never, but I can't foresee a time when 'data' in boxing is used to any great strategic effect. It does make for window-dressing and talking points for the commentators, though.

You say boxers fight in patterns and, to some extent that is true, but the scope for unpredictability in a boxers actions is still too high, I would say, to be a reliable basis for a data-driven strategy. And, that's before we consider a good number of other confounding variables of which I can probably think of a dozen off the top of my head.

The patterns you mention are likely perceivable by the naked eye and are perhaps better viewed that way within the context they have been perceived - rather than interpreted through cold data.

I can imagine a day when technology can support sophisticated pre-fight simulations - But, by then, we'll all either be on the payroll of Cyberdyne Systems or under the yoke of SkyNet - with some of us on the run from mean-looking automatons.

 

I would say something like trying to predict the amount of jabs an opponent is going to throw is almost completely worthless

Take for example Foreman knocking out Moorer, it has since been revealed Foreman was holding back on his rights to get Moorer comfortable with them, overconfident that he could handle them, and Foreman then of course turned it up and put Moorer out, something like that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to decipher from film, and what is a trainer supposed to do...try to predict how many rights Foreman is going to hold back on? If a trainer prepares the fighter for a specific set of conditions and then those conditions are not met the fighter is worse off

 

I believe that boxing is far more circumstantial and matchup-based than most other sports. The rhythm of someone can change entirely based on who they are fighting. Access to film is very important because it gives you an idea of what habits a boxer may have, but boxing them is a whole other step. The exact number of jabs, or the exact punch count is not as important as understanding why and when someone throws their punch. In short, I think punch count is not very useful, the ability to watch film of a fighter is, and fighting is so reliant on two individuals' timing interacting, it is difficult to predict. Fighting is complicated and imperfect.

 

I'm really surprised you feel that way. Bud Crawford, Lomo, Uysk, Benavidez and Inoue are all fun too watch. I will say that I wish guys would be more active and fight more often but I feel like the sport is healthy from a skill level perspective but it is definitely on the decline when it comes to mainstream popularity.

 

I actually do like all of the guys you mentioned. They are just in the minority.

 

Thats whats wrong with studying fight film. You study so much to fight one guy if he shows up and fights differently now you're screwed.

 

Absolutely right.