Picking out the technical shortcomings as compared to modern boxing - McFarland-Welsh

but they also had alot else going for them, they used the shoulder and used the right hand to cover from the hook. check that picture of sandy saddler. leaned his head into his left shoulder with a low left hand and keep the right hand about shoulder/jaw height. if you threw a right hand t would be caught by the shoulder and be countered or at least deflected and put you out of balance.


other low handers like jones he was using it as a way of inticing them in, he wasnt on the inside at al for long parts of the bout. something that montell griffin exposed him off his lack of solid inside work. knowing he wasn't a threat on the inside made him not have the advantage on the outside.



what the **** am i on/going with thisatsch





low hands will let you down, but it's whether you can use it to your own advantage. low hands also mean that your not loaded up and can always retreat. ali was always just a quarter inch out of reach so his right cross would always go over the jab which would be short. when a guy came at him on the inside he was very open and had to flurry his way out of it...not always to great effect but it was alright.....also he is a gifted athlete i wouldn't be surprised had he had a different guard or trainer and still be just as great.


high hands on the retreat throw you of balance so keep that in mind. having high hands meant that you where a stationary target and be able to pick off.

 

You're quite right. Very few in MMA are skillful when it comes to boxing technique. B J Penn is quite alright, though. I think he could make a fringe contender perhaps if he tried out pure boxing. His punching technique is not bad at all.

 

But even the best fighters today would do well not to have quite as low guard as McFarland and Welsh IMO. Especially with as relatively little head movement and the straight backed stance McFarland has.

 

I agree, always depends on the fighter and their attributes. Same goes with styles and not just a fighter's guard. Think LaMotta fighting out of a crouch. Does anyone honestly believe he's better suited to fight with a peek-a-boo style? I'm not. One isn't just vastly superior than the other.

I thought, though El Buja was making the point that having a guard more lower rather than high is more effective. And I know these things vary on a case by case instance but I thought he made that statement as far as generally speaking though, and that's something I just disagree with.

Bingo, that's basically the main point here.

 

That´s the thing. It´s opinion. An opinion you can´t back up. I don´t know if they would fare well today but what I do know that the number of greats throughout history employing lower guards is huge and thus crtizising fighters for having a low guard is kind a pointless. It may not be textbook but it works. You do what works for you. If it´s a low guard, well, then do it.

Agreed.

Kind of and I think he is right. When you have a fighter who could pull of a low guard and a high guard on the same level, I think he would be more successful with the lowguard due to it´s advantages. BUT most fighters can´t pull of a low guard thus they are better of with a high guard.

 

A low guard could be very effective when throwing more than two punches at a time is a rarity.

 

The point of the thread was to pick out technical shortcomings from the film. If I was asked to pick out technical shortcomings of Ali or Jones I (like almost everyone else) would point to their low guards. Did the same here.

 

And my point is that those things aren´t necessarily shortcomings. As long as it´s working it´s good.

 

But the thing is, if I referred to it as technical shortcomings in Ali and Jones I doubt you would disagree. None has so far. If I compared Jones and Hopkins in terms of technical skill and used Hopkin's tighter/higher guard as one reason to rank him higher in this aspect, would you disagree with that?

 

Yes and no. I would point out that Hopkins was more textbook than Jones but that Jones´style worked for him.

 

And nothing "but Hopkin's more text book style allowed him to operate at a high level when he got older, unlike Jones who dropped off sharply when his speed and reflexes declined"?

 

To be honest with you, Ali and Jones would both have been seen as something of an aberation of the boxing book, even if they had fought in 1930 or 1900. Even fighters with low guards dont generaly rely on reflexes and reaction to keep their chin unchecked.

You do get fighters like that once in a blue moon, with Jimmy Slattery being one example and Dixe Kidd arguably being another, but they are always going to be seen as something out of the ordinary.

Among the modern crop of fighters, David Haye is sombody who would not have looked out of place in the 20s.

 

Boxing styles have changed over the years (note that I didn't say evolved) and there are reasons for this. There are no more 20 round fights anymore and the equipment has improved. Better gloves, mouthguards etc.. which lead to a different approach to fighting. Form follows function and Boxing is no exception to that paradigm. Fighters fought in a more straight up/slightly leaned back way to avoid clashing heads and the common "swings" that were often employed in those days so keeping the hands way up wasn't as essential as footwork and headmoving was. This is good for avoiding punches but it seems that it also prevented fighters from really setting down on thier punches and inflicting consistent heavy damage. Maybe this is one reason that fighters were able to fight more often. That and conditioning of course. Fighters didn't seem to utilize a good consistent jab either to set up thier blows. They seemed to rely alot on feints and shifts. Compare these 2 fighters to someone like Alexis Arguello or Salvador Sanchez in style who employed a higher guard and hard fast consistent jab

 

Sorry... I accidentally ended my post to soon but the point I'm trying to make is that as time went by the changes in style were a result of different factors. Rules, glove size, duration of fights and of course money all had something to do with it. The old time fighters were very good at what they did and thier tactics can still be employed today but the more modern methods came to be for a reason and some of those old techniques wouldn't fly today such as the hands by the waist all the time and the head held high. No trainer today would teach an aspiring young boxer to fight that way and for a good reason.

 

This this has more to do with the fighters attributes and natural ability than the guard (Like Jones and Ali. They're simply phenoms). I see what you're saying, but it requires insane footwork and reflexes at time to have success leading and take advantage of countering (Like Pep).

For example, Mike Tyson would've never been better with a low guard. Absolutely not, and neither would Duran. Even Jack Dempsey wouldn't have, and he had it. There are exceptions, but I don't think it's a better rule. I'm talking strictly in comparison to the original video. Having your right guard up in range is almost essential for most. The left hand doesn't need to be tucked near the chin when you use your shoulder. The video in the OP is another level low, which is in dispute.