The Crouch And Cutting Off The Ring

Glove blocking and the rest is implemented in this style.

This latest rant by you is extremely ignorant.

It's not an evolution of the style. It's different. Both styles were around at the same time. Patterson wasn't fighting other fighters with a more evolved style. It was a newer style at the time, though. You look at guys like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles, but there was nothing really archaic about their style. In fact, there's been a resurgence into this sort of style.

Truthfully, pressure fighting is almost rarer. Most fighters just plow forward without any hip, upperbody, or head-movement. Does Chris Arreola or Sam Peters fight out of more an evolved style? Hell no. They just walk forward and club. Tyson and Patterson fought in a different style, not an involved one.

And for all your emphasis of a lack of defense, both Marciano and LaMotta were never KOed. The same can not be said for Frazier or Tyson.

Heck, Frazier's style of bobbing & weaving was is the style Henry Armstrong fought in. You're just generalizing the time period with the style. Athletic and explosive guys fit the bill for the Cus system better. It's not a better system. In fact, glove-blocking is arguably superior in the crouch. And you roll punches and can counter all punches better. You don't pressure as quickly, as you lose a half-step and cutting the ring off is more difficult. Certain punches land more frequently on the crouch than under a Frazier/Tyson style, and vice versa. Both are good styles at ducking under the jab. One thing with the crouch though, is you pull back. So the reality is you're not taking as much punishment as you think.

LaMotta would be champion if he fought today. So much for an archaic style. It's just different, don't be ignorant.

 

Exactly! The uppercut is way easier to land on Frazier, then it was to Marciano, Lamotta, or even Basilio (Probably should have tried doing some analysis on him. It's not as dramatic as the listed crouches, I guess).

Left Hook is acting like the crouch is some pre-evolutionary technique. There's glove-blocking, rolling under punches, hip-rotation to slip, roll, and pull back punches. There's glove-blocking, and in a much more sophisticated and less obvious way then the "Tuck my gloves under my chin."

I would like to really know, too. What is so evolutionary about Clottey's shell (Some call it the peeka boo style but it's not), or Abraham's shell. It's a strong ass defense, and it's obviously boring as hell too. Effective, too, but does little offensively. And what about the Juan Diaz just moving forward barely bobbing & weaving.

It seems this defensive style gets undermined. There are multitudes and aspects to it. I guess that's why there is such a stark contrast in the opinions. The reality isn't quite the way it appears.


*Edit* And this thread was supposed to be about the crouch and it's limitations/disadvantages. Not about how it's some prehistoric style that serves little to no purpose to some successor styles (Even though the peeka boo was around with Torres and Patterson during the same time). It's not a thread about how it's useless, just about it's shortcomings.

I've actually heard someone argue that the reason Tyson faltered and failed is because he fought under the wrong style. If he fought under the crouch like Marciano the way Goldman taught him he would have been more successful and would have had better longevity.

Now, I'm not in this mold. Interesting the contrast. This same poster was a poster on ESB too. The styles are different and fitting for different types of fighters. I think GPatterson said it best when he said that the peeka boo and bob & weave are great for more explosive type fighters, while the crouch is great for the a tactical 15 round distance of a fight. It suits strong-chinned and powerful guys that might be not the fastest or most athletic.


Please... please. Someone explain to me how the peeka boo style would have been better for Marciano or LaMotta had they been fighting. More proof it's just different. And I'm referring to Left Hook. By the way, what fighter today uses the peeka boo? You named a fighter that actually still uses the crouch, but nobody really uses the peeka boo anymore. Unless the new shell Clottey uses is an evolution of the style.

 

No, I was just making a point how styles haven't neccessarily been advancing or improving because we're at a later point in the sport.

I wasn't comparing his style to a pressure fighter. I was making a point. Funny thing is this is almost what a pressure fighter has come to. Boxing has become almost naturally just safer and more cautious. But I digress again, that's another subject. My point was just because a style is popularized more so at a later time doesn't make it better. Is Clottey's shell or "peeka a boo" better than Mike Tyson's/Joe Frazier's style. Or is it just different?

Marciano was made to order for bigger men. Getting low is a big point/aspect of this.

When did I say he didn't? I was talking about his glove-blocking. It seems to me Marciano and Lamotta occupied more complicated glove-blocking. Whether it be changing the position or parrying.

It's not an evolution of it! You're trying to act like A evolved into B. This isn't evolution of the species. The styles were both being fight by fighters around the same time either way. You think it's inferior, you've made that clear. That's your opinion. You said it was "archaic." It's different, that's for sure. I've listed the advantages of both, and disadvantages of both. You've just talked opinion after opinion with mentioning the specifics. You can't answer me whether Lamotta/Marciano would've been better off using that style. You just say it needs a special fighter to use it. Was Patterson or Torres that special type of fighter? Tyson was a phenom in a billions ways. He should've been the GOAT. He wasn't. Other fighters aren't so much advanced in the style. So acting like the style in and of it self is so much better because of a phenom is a little bit of a cheap point. We could argue day and night about the advantages and disadvantages, or the fact that Tyson is much faster, more athletic, and much more apt at fighting in the peeka boo style. This doesn't make the crouch archaic or inferior.

I can't imagine Marciano/LaMotta fighting under the Peeka Boo style. I don't think they would do better. Likewise, Tyson is better with the peeka boo. Patterson, too, I think. Who knows though. Maybe Tyson would've had more longevity or would have been more of a consistent force rather than a quick KO sensation that quickly faded?

Yeah, the guy is the oldest active champion alive. That says a whole bunch. Basilio lived long too. I guess these old *******s were either incredibly tough, or perhaps they just didn't get hit/punished as much as you may think.


I'll give an example. Archie Moore teaching Ali was all wrong. Ali was meant to flow at his own rhythm. He was meant to be unconventional, and use his length, height, speed, reach, and reflexes and natural footwork/footspeed to fight under his own style. The conventional book wouldn't work as well for him I don't think. And I think Ali might've known that, or maybe he was just a brash young kid. Surely he had confidence in his approach. Does that make Ali's style so superior? Obviously not. And the dieing breed of old school styles like Archie Moore must mean he fought out of a prehistoric style. Hell no...

 

You're making a thousand mistakes that aren't even worth mentioning. This has gone way beyond a styles comparison. Now you're adding a multitude of factors, speculation, and fantasy.

One thing I believe is that Marciano would've never gotten KOed by Buster Douglas.

But I don't want to get into this realm of ridiculousness. You're making a lot of mistakes with this post.