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

It's all about learning and getting the experience.

 

Yes, when the shove comes from the front you are right, when it comes from either side you are not.

 

Cheers lads.

 

Yeah I remember, Canzoneri. I can't dispute that. I want to question the time or the fact that his opponents couldn't exploit it. But that would be an empty critique. Another exclusion; I mean he was Italian too.

My point is that there are a majority of examples for fighters being more equipped or simply better because they have a higher guard. This isn't the case for the low-guard. In fact you could argue that just because said fighter gets away with it it doesn't mean that he would've been worse of fighting with a higher guard. A technical approach is almost always the better result, regardless of Fighter X being efficient and making his low-guard style work.




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

 

Top-notch stuff. Couldn't imagine seeing a lot of these guys live. Must've been nice. We've had our disagreement but I know you have expert knowledge on the sweet science.

 

My answer would have been a "really" combined with "". When you look at his level of opposition that question shouldn´t be asked ´cause some of them were the best ever.

You can´t know that, it´s an assumption you can´t back up. Yes, for the average fighter a high guard is better. For someone who can pull it of not necessarily, why I pointed out more than once already.

 

One shouldn't exaggerate. These guys do many things well, it's just that it has progressed further. But that doesn't mean these guys are unskilled. Absolutely not.

 

I dont want to get into another long discussion with this, but no you are still incorrect. When you are in a correct boxing stance and you are moving your feet correctly you should never be off balance. If a fighter is squared up even on the inside he will have worse balance. For instance if his legs are squared up to you on the inside, you just take a step back and he will fall forward, or if you step in hes going to fall backwards, and always be in poor balance. Try it yourself, square your body and legs up and lean forward or back. If you dont have someone to lean on your either going to fall backwards or forwards. If you are in a proper boxing stance you can move your back or front leg to widen your stance a bit and still maintain a solid balance.

Its when you have poor footwork and you cross your stance is when you become off balance easier, but even on the inside the same rule applies. If your legs and upper body are squared you are a larger target.

 

...This is one of the best threads I've ever seen on this forum. Great argument, great historical knowledge, great analysis.

McGrain lit the fuse to something great here.

 

From the footage I don't see his jab as that great, but this was obviously early in his career.

I have sparred a couple of times with a guy that has a squared stance and not much of a guard. He often gets away with this due to his very quick feet, but if you lead with a double or triple jab (preferrably to his chest) and then a right you get to him. And because of his squared torso his chin is not protected by the shoulder either and is there to be hit.

This is not a style he's purposefully adopted, but just something that has come naturally and that he's not felt too concerned about since his feet will get him away from many he spars with. But it only goes so far. When he's pressed by a consistent jab he's very vulnerable. His technique just isn't good enough.

 

I think in the footage Walsh shows a superb left jab. He turns the shoulder in well, takes a step with it, keeps the right up to protect himself and snaps it well. He also doubles it up at times. Personally, I think it is a superb left jab, and there is a lot of people that could back up that line of reasoning.

McFarland shows superb foot speed, positioning and control of distance. Maybe this is why he is able to evade Walsh's jabbing attacks. What do you think?

 

You are not getting my point. Yes, you have a better balance in a proper boxing stance but you are vulnerable if someone shoves you from the left or right when you facing your opponent. When you are quared up you are less vulnerable. I agree you are better balanced from the front, compared to a squared up fighter but if some one knows how to wrestle he won´t let you get away and put himself off-balance and he will use your disadvantage described above against you. Think about it, why are graeco-roman wrestlers more squared up than in a boxing stance? Those guys back then where about in the same class when it comes to wrestling.

 

Oh yes, he certainly has and this does of course help him. But I think he'd prove to be even more elusive with a more squared stance, chin tucked behind left shoulder, more head movement and a tighter guard.

 

I think he often bends his head down too much when throwing the jab, instead of keeping his eyes on the opponent and protectint the face with the left shoulder and right hand.

 

That is fair enough.

I don't think it is excessive. He is just dropping his chin down IMO. His left shoulder and right hand do a superb job of guarding him as he jabs also.