Boxing Footwork: Essential do's and dont`s!

Well yeah but Mayweather has a lot of tools that Garcia doesn't. It isn't as simple as Southpaw vs Orthodox. There's positioning obviously but also understanding what you can, what you should do, why, the set ups, etc. Garcia literally couldn't do most of that to Spence if he wanted to. He seemed slower than Spence to me which was surprising. Garcia has never been the most fleet footed guy in the world but since I never got that vibe from Spence I didn't expect him to be able to control the distance like that without overextending (problem I noticed in the past). Spence boxed very well and played to his advantages perfectly but at the same time you have to look at the physical advantages he had when you want to compare performances.

 

Trainers don't normally straight up say "He's out of shape and I was disappointed in his sparring" and again, these are logical problems that can be observed. We saw him get worse, we saw him not improve, we heard some of the reasons given which were plausible. YOU'RE the one ignoring evidence here.

Also wtf is YOUR point? That is awfully extreme. "Naz sucks so much that he can't even beat an elite boxer" wtf. Barrera is really good. There is no shame in losing to him. You don't need to make excuses for losing to Barrera. I think he also had an injured hand but I could wrong about that. That may have been bull****. These are stories from over a decade ago.

 

Ahhh that's right. It was something though I thought... There was some reason they gave for Naz being worse that related to some personal problem but I don't remember what it was. Was it just him being self destructive and not taking **** as seriously as he needed to?

 

exactly, STORIES. stories you keep repeating 10 years later. naz got beat when he reached a certain level, the clues were there way before it happened, that it was going to happen. only the brits argued against the evidence, but nobody expects anything different from them so the STORIES werent taken seriously. what happened is exactly what many, including myself, predicted would happen, and would have happened again, had he not saved himself the certainty of it all.

 

Highlights aren't the whole fight. He lost clearly but he didn't lose every single round or get multiple 10-8. I'm not saying it was close, I'm saying the narrative of "Naseem got completely dominated and could never do anything for the entire fight and was entirely outclassed" isn't actually what happened there. 8-4 or 9-3 with no knockdowns 10-8 rounds or a massive difference in punches landed doesn't seem like THAT big of a deal to me.

 

These claims don't exist for no reason. You CLEARLY saw him getting worse. Why are you ignoring that? Why are we ignoring what his own trainer said about him, and what MULTIPLE said?

Naz was heavily reliant on his athleticism. Naz didn't train as much (speculation on my part, claim by trainers) so his athletics diminished (logic), Naz then proceeds to have worse performances (observable, enhances claim by trainers), Naz then retires after another match where he couldn't replicate his previous performances. What about this is so absurd to you ?

 

how hard is it to understand that many people could see he wasnt that good, and would be exposed by the top fighters? he could hit very hard and had very unorthodox movement, but there are ways to deal with all that, and we knew there are guys out there who would. naz knew this too, of course he didnt want to believe it, but barrera forced that fact upon him. you can see it in nazs face as marco slowly takes what confidence naz had left in his ability.

 

That doesn't address him fighting WORSE against OTHER people around the SAME timeframe before and after. He was already declining at that point. It was mentioned.

You're speculating MUCH more than me by the way. There is no evidence that Naz knew that he would lose miserably to someone like Barrera throughout his entire career.

 

yeah, its amazing how naz started looking worse as opponents got better, complete mystery.

 

They didn't get better though. He looked worse against worse competition lmao. I'm not just talking about Barrera. I just said that. Again why are you ignoring what his own trainers have said and the evidence provided? What is so hard to believe about "He's not taking training seriously."?

 

how can you take a trainers word about his own fighter? when are they ever honest about their weaknesses? why not take the words of other trainers, you know, the ones that felt nazs style would be defeated by a master boxer? you making it sound like naz started at the top and worked his way down. naz looked like a beast against lower level comp and came up short against the top level. thats the one truth that overides all others.

 

Trainers don't say that a fighter is performing like **** in training, mention tons of ****, and then leave him unless that is actually what is happening. Okay, why would he lie? To try to make himself look better for Hamed losing? Did ANYONE blame Manny for Hamed's loss? Do YOU even blame him? So why does he need to lie about this?

You either think that he's lying or you think training doesn't matter. Both points are weird. If he was lying why didn't Hamed prove him wrong? He didn't contradict anything, he didn't put in a good performance, nothing. He just retired and later said his hand was getting damaged which also makes sense.

 

why people lie is a never ending list, why he didnt return to set the record straight is not. he lost against the only fighter considered A level, then quickly retired knowing that people would only have that performance to judge his level against elite level. he felt comfortable with what the evidence revealed, the only ones not comfortable with it are his delusional fans who cant face the fact that he was never great.

 

So why did he not look decent in his next fight or the one before Barrera?
His hands being damaged is something also to consider.
Why do you think him coming into camp overweight is irrelevant?

You're ignoring that he was performing worse against multiple opponents of different caliber in that time frame, you're ignoring that we had reports of damaged hands which were a large part of his previous success, you're ignoring the poor training, you're ignoring the poor condition, you're ignoring evidence pointing to that, and you're ignoring what people close to have said. Because reasons.

People aren't just simply "Better" there are usually other factors that go into that. You are ignoring all of them and then just saying "Well he was better!" I answer why and you say "Naw he's just better!".