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

Well not necessarily, because that description "complete fighter" started to come into play. This was a fighter well versed on all styles of fighting. He could do it all and take advantage of an opponents one dimension by fighting a different way.
A complete fighter of today can box from the outside and hold like hell on the inside LOL.

 

To me, the low guard is explained by the smaller gloves and the long duration of the fights. A constant high guard can be somewhat energy-consuming, not so much in a 12 round bout but in a 20+ round fight. There wasn't as much movement or combination punching, but this is also partly explained by the duration of the fights, it didn't pay off to expend your energy early. It's easier to pay attention to the nuances of boxing when you're only going 10 or 12 rounds.

Of course the social conditions were also very different in the early 1900's, not too many fighters had access to all the technical information, they just made up their style by fighting hundreds of times in order to make a living. Today, any half-decent trainer knows enough to teach the textbook stance and correct simple mistakes.

It doesn't surprise me that the techniques, combination punching, moving and defense, seem to improve quickly from the 1900's and 1910's, the early days, to the 1930's and especially 1940's, when 10 and 15 round fights became popular.

 

You really think holding is all they did back then? What they did has more similarity with graeco-roman style wrestling than with today´s holding. That´s a no contest.

 

:good

 

No I said nowadays. There is little infighters today.

 

That´s true. Sadly, I like good infighting contests.

 

I agree completely. As I said in an earlier post, I dont think holding your guard low is the biggest issue I have, its the body position. Many fighters of the last 20-30 years carry a low guard and have been very successful, but they have tightened their stance and delivery, which is the point Ive been trying to make all along, and that really does not put any kind of physical drain on a fighter.

 

No it does not but as pointed out earlier, you are in a disadvantage against a squared up fighter when entering a clinch what would happen back in the day. And often. Of course you could adjust while entering the clinch but that costs time and energy.

 

Your sorting of touching on the point I want to make.

The actual positioning of the guard can be put down to a variety of factors such as: what you'r opponent is targeting?; Your own talents; personal preferences.

But at the end of the day surely we should be focussing on the elements of success rather than the schematics that make this success. For example, we should look at the parrying of modern and old time stereo-type fighters. Both can parry a jab easily but have different hand positionings.

A low left and a high right is generally a more prevalent stance that gives you good protection.

For example, from my own experiences, when I am punching myself I look to block incoming on my right glove. So my stance may be different from a 1910's boxer but you watch them when they chuck the jab, their right hand is waiting for incoming, just like mine (although they are a lot more successful.)

Not that I am using myself as a great proponent of a 'modern' style.

Agree 100%

I have often said that Haye is a 'throwback' stylistically and to a lesser extent his ginger copy cat George Groves.

Walsh was brilliant at leading with the jab, even in the film he shows that. And even then McFarland was not in too much of a hazard.

Walsh was a master of the jab and has been noted for this for decades. I believe some people proclaimed he had the best left hand in boxing, and he used it to close the distance and generally get shots off at closer ranges, do you not think this should have troubled McFarland? But from the evidence we have, it would appear not to.

Some CV. In terms of technical things you definitely know your stuff.




This has been an excellant discussion and thread all round IMO.

 

Why are you at a disadvantage if no punches are being thrown? I think it takes more energy to move in a squared stance, because your balance is not all that great.

Also notice how fighters nowadays use the ref to redirect off of a clinch. I used to use that tactic when I was getting hit in a direction I was trying to get out of. I would go to the clinch and make the ref break me to the direction I wanted to go in.

Thanks GPater, howd you do in that rematch? I was waiting for you to post that fight.

 

Didn't happen. I fought a guy from his club who is thought to be much better. I started off boxing realised the guy was out sharp shooting me so I went on the offensive and had a very strong 2nd round where he lost points for holding, the third was level with him being quite negative and my work being scrappy, and he got the decision, no qualms about it really. But alot of people thought he would whup me bad but I held my own.

Hopefully, I can get back to winning soon though.

 

Go in your boxing stance and then let someone shove you from left or right. He will through you off-balance with almost no effort. This won´t happen when you are squared up. Guys with some experience will easily exploit this.

 

Good luck :good

 

Quite the opposite. It's easier to be knocked off balance from a squared stance

 

That's what I'm saying. Plus when you're off center you're farther away from your opponent's lead.