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

He has more head movement, though. It's those stiff backs with the weight slightly on the back foot I see as hazard against someone that leads well with a jab (which often is doubled or even tripled or hooked from) and has a good straight right behind it.

 

So? What has this to do with what I´m saying? I gave you one example of a fighter with a low guard who did not rely on speed and reflexes earlier. Who had a fine longevity too. And there are others, like McFarland in this thread for example. Yes, Jones´ style didn´t work for him any more when he declined. I give you an example of a fighter who had the same fate despite using a peek-a-boo defence: Mike Tyson.
Hopkins is hardly the standard either, there are plenty of textbook fighters out there without his longevity.
Picking two examples that are far from your average low guard/high guard fighter don´t help your point.

Thank you! this are the points I always try to make in these kinds of threads.

I disagree with that. I gave an example earlier in this thread for a fighter without the speed and reflexes y<ou say it needs to do this. Look my postings up, they are on the last 1-2 sites.

There is nothing in this part of your post where you are disagreeing with me actually. :think

Really? Disagree, Dempsey had at least as much headmovement ... and a better one.

 

My point was that no one (including you) objects when a modern fighter's very low guard is pointed out as a technical shortcoming. But when one does the same concerning older fighters you can count on a handful of posters claiming that now it's all of a sudden not a technical shortcoming at all. Quite clear double standards.

 

Not at all. For one simple reason: back then a low guard was the standard, the norm. A high guard would have been a technical shortcoming. These days it´s the other way round. What you are doing, is using a textbook that was invented after the guys stopped fighting, and so didn´t know anything about, and judge them by it. Something that´s forbidden in both law and histroical science.

That´s like you getting a ticket for wrong parking last week when it was only illegal since yesterday.

 

Its not just about a low guard, its more about body and arm position. Many fighters still today carry a low guard, but their in better position to move it up as they get into range and throw straighter more correct punches. I think someone mentioned Lennox Lewis. Yes he carried his guard low, but he kept himself in the proper stance, elbows in, and as he moved into range, his hands would come up, and his punchers were delivered straight and correct.
Some of these old timers were so used to infighting or fighting in close their stance was always somewhat squared, their elbows were not in, so their punches were not delivered at the most effective way.
If we compare these type of stylists to say fighters of the 1970's and beyond, the number of successful ones becomes less and less. Again in the video I posted you can see two different type of fighters, a boxer brawler and straight up boxer, and you can see a similarity in the stance and delivery of their shots.

 

Yes, 'cause the game has evolved.

Nonsense. That was the point of the whole thread. And technical criteria is not something arbitrary, it's something that has gradually evolved through trial and error. Can't be compared to a ruleset.

"Picking out the technical shortcomings as compared to modern boxing" was what McGrain wanted. And I repeat: if I'd be asked to do the same thing about Ali and Jones, their guards would get a mention. Same here.

 

This is one of my favorite fights from the early 1910's.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8gwtfcRk64[/ame]


The fast speed makes it look a little funny at first but in correct speed the action is hardly any different from more modern eras of boxing.

Wolgast-Nelson surprisingly also looks quite modern with the constant combination punching and moving around the ring (by Wolgast), except it was contested for 40 rounds.

 

Nice footage! Thanks.:good

 

Good post. What's your experience with boxing Lefthook?

 

My biggest claim to fame is being an assitant trainer to Angelo Dundee in the mid 90's and I worked with a lot of his amatuers. Not a lot of name pro fighters, Atillia Levin and George Scott were probably the most popular of the group. Ive been in training camps with Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Michael Moorer, Felix Trinidad, Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones, Lou Delvalle, Richard Hall, David Tua, Vernon Forrest, Andrew Golota, Pernell Whitaker, Zab Judah, Fernando Vargas, tons of fighters. I got to listen to some of the best in the business, Dundee, Benton, Brooks, Steward, Atlas, Rooney, etc.

 

No, it has not that´s the point. It changed because the rules changed. That´s not evolving.

Of course it can. If a technique was not around during a time you can´t fault a fighter for not using it.

Yes, the point of the thread but that doesn´t mean it makes much sense.


I don´t wanna defend the old-timers, nor do I want to fault the modern fighters. But there are three points in which I differ with most people in here I think.
First, I think there were great fighters in every era and those fighters are comparable in terms of talent, skill and so on. BUT the depth at the top varies through the eras, thus in times with more depth fighters are more proven than fighters in eras with less depth. IMO beeing proven is the most important thing when judging the greatness of a fighter thus fighters who weren´t (much) proven won´t end up as great as fighters who proved themselves.
Second, like stated before, I don´t think there was an evolution in terms of skill or technique. Techniques were adepted to the rules or new techniques emerged and old techniques vanished due to rule changes and new circumstances. That does not mean the techniques of old fighters were superior or those of new fighters, it means that both were perfectly adepted to the rules. Form follows function.
Third, I agree that using the scientific method improved the athleticism of fighters - primarly due to nutrition and supplements though. But this is neutralized and even turned a bit to the opposite since due to that athleticism became the major focus in training. Training technique and sparring is still done but it´s not the major focus of training and together with less fights this leads to fighters beeing worse in terms of variaty, experience, what they actually can do in the ring.

 

Well, even if a lot of the older guys had low hands/a low hand they had other skills to back it up or had it intentionally set as a draw or platform for feints. Louis for example kept his left low but had his right exactly where it needed to be to parry with a jab, and his stance was properly off center so he was never in his opponents line of attack. Ali didn't have any idea how to deal from a jab apart from swaying away from it or using his legs to just get out of the way.

What i think is that the concept of Guard is very adaptable in boxing depending on one's own skillset. A high guard has the natural advantage of being right in the way of a punch's main modern target, your chin. However, like any guard you sacrifice efficiency in certain offensive tactics and of course expose other vulnerable targets. I think that overall stance is much more important than where your hands are at anyway. IMO, the real flaw in most modern boxers is consistently squaring up too often(see: Hoya) rather than where your hands are.

I almost completely agree with Bodhi's post above.

 

I remember ages ago saying that you come across as someone involved in the game

 

Well not anymore. Im married with small kids now. Not sure I will have them involved in boxing, but I dont have the time to hang out in a gym everyday anymore but I had a lot of fun helping the youngsters in the amatuers more than the stubborn pros. They would come into the gym with no boxing experience and I would have them in amatuer fights doing well in a couple months.

 

We disagree. Nothing new about that.

Haven't faulted anyone, just followed the point of the thread which was to compare them to modern boxing.

If you think so, you should keep out of the thread.