Firstly I have other calls on my time besides arguing with people about boxing on the internet. They don't pay me a wage for it to begin with. If you want me to watch multiple fights, studying parts frame bey frame, you will have to be prepared to wait. Secondly, if you watched Sharkey Carnera II, then there is a serious problem here. There is a good reason why I did not choose this fight. Sharkey looks a lot better in his first fight with Carnera. What you have done is like judging Mike Tyson on a fight after he came out of prison, and ignoring the footage of him in his prime. The fact that you did not analyse the fight that I told you to, largely renders the rest of your points moot, but some have to be addressed here. No, leaning forward to cover distance is not necessarily a technical flaw. It makes you less vulnerable to a body shot, and is normal textbook practice among fighters who use an off center stance, which keeps their right hand further from the target. If it is an inexcusable error, then it is also inexcusable, in the many modern fighters who do it, and if it would allow somebody like Breazle to be successful against the best fighters of the past, then he should be cleaning up against the fighters who do it today. I would also add that Jack Sharkey was less reliant upon a guard than most fighters, because his off center stance allowed him to protect himself with minimal movements. A fighter using a square on stance as is normal today, would be taking a much greater risk . It can be capitalized upon if a fighter makes a habit of doing it, like Ali for example, but a fighter will often get away with it if their opponent does not know that they are going to do it, which is why many fighters continue to do ti today. Fighters from every era do these thing sometimes, including the very best technicians. The fundamentals of footwork are a good guideline, but if you need to get out of the way, you get out of the way! If you are given a priceless opportunity, that means going slightly off balance, then you take it! Put it this way. If Breazle is technically sound, then being technically sound is a vastly over rated attribute! There are guys in the top five who are clearly not technically orthodox, and he is still not getting into the top echelon! You have listed a number of things that you see as being technical flaws, which are commonplace today, and Breazle is still languishing outside the top ten!
Because they are just that. Fundamentals. A start point, and not a finish point. It is exactly like picking Ford Smith over Klitschko. You are arguing that a C class fighter from one era, would beat the best from another. If that is not bias, then it is an extraordinary disdain for the era, or prejudice against the era! So where exactly do you think that Jack Blackburn got his boxing knowledge from? He did most of his fighting in the 1900s! It might be the case that boxing has improved like say track sports, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and it cannot be assumed to be the case without evidence! If you took all the fundamentally sound boxers who never even made it to national level, they would probably populate a small city! You will probably find a few at your local gym. Wladamir Klitschko doesn't have any sort of inside game. This is a very fundamental gap in his skillset, and I would rate Primo Carnera as being far superior in this department. He go away with it because of his size, and his very good outside game, but it would not have worked in a man Sharkey's size, then or now! Bingo The biggest skill gap, is between cruiser weight sized fighters, and super heavyweights, for the reasons given above! I would say that he obviously isn't then! I might just buy it if Ortiz has some glittering resume, and Wilder was just a stylistic foil for him, but that is not really the case!
Breazeale has lost to the current champions both have a 95% K.O percentages. They stand 6'6 plus and one is an aggressive counter puncher. Anyone of those guys resemble them ? Breazeales best win is Izu Ugonoh , another monster puncher standing 6'5 around 235 .that throws vicious body punches. And Breazeales his only loss. if you've noticed a pattern here only huge puncher s have troubled him. Breazeale himself stands over 6'7 and over 250. None of those guys win , but Baer has the best chance .
So who has Breazle actually beaten, or even given a competitive fight to? You say that only huge punchers trouble him, but it might just be that anybody in the top ten troubles him!
The quality for the first fight is so bad. But if you believe there's a major difference between Sharkey's performances, I'll watch it as soon as possible. Valid point. At least I analyzed something though lol. We'll see how much better Sharkey looks. I don't know what an off-center stance is. I'm assuming you're talking about some kind of stance where your head is off the center line. But either way, leaning forward to cover distance is a MAJOR technical flaw. Leaning forward doesn't make you less vulnerable to body shots. It actually makes you more vulnerable. You're off balance and you have no form of defence. Imagine you're standing next to a table in an orthodox stance for some reason. You see a cup is about to fall off the table and you lean/bend forward to prevent it from falling. If you went into a standing fetal position, then you'd be pretty safe lol. But if you lean forward and you're off balance, I can easily hit you with uppercuts and hooks to the body while you're trying to regain balance. Absolutely. As I said earlier, an error is an error. I asked you before, twice actually. Name a fighter today that makes those technical errors. I don't know which Sharkey fights you watched. I've seen his fight against Carnera, Schmeling, Dempsey. His stance is pretty basic. He stands just as square as Breazeale, Joshua, Ortiz etc. And Sharkey wasn't very difficult to hit. Ali had exceptional reflexes and sense of distance. He can't be compared to anyone. Fighters still lean away from punches. Sometimes it's the best option and at other times it's desperation/urgency. I never said that Sharkey was the only fighter who made this mistake. My job was to point out technical errors. You're countering by saying that everyone does it, regardless of era. You aren't wrong. But it doesn't make it right. And Sharkey only did it twice. It's not even his biggest flaw. This is where you're wrong. Fundamentals of footwork is a "good guideline". Is that all it is? Maintaining your stance and balance at all times is perhaps the most important thing in boxing. Everything in boxing starts with your feet. If you're not in the right position, nothing else matters. "if you need to get out of the way, you get out of the way" This is an ignorant statement. There's a proper way of doing things. A priceless opportunity? Slightly off balance? This is funny. Sharkey was about to fall face first 3 separate times. That's not "slightly" off balance. And he missed almost all his jabs where he was leaning forward. I don't know if you ignore what I write or you're in denial. "If Froch is technically correct, then there is no such this as a technically incorrect fighter!" "f Breazle is technically sound, then being technically sound is a vastly over rated attribute!" When did I ever say Froch was technically correct? I said he was more technically sound than Walker. Say you've been boxing for 6 months. There's another person who's been boxing for 2 months. You might be more technically sound than the other person but doesn't mean you are technically sound. You're acting like there's two ends with nothing in the middle. You're either technically correct or you aren't. You either jab like Holmes or you can't jab for shi-t. You can either punch like Foreman or you can't punch at all. There's levels to everything. I didn't say Breazeale is technically sound. He's not good for today's standards. But he's MORE technically sound than Sharkey. That's what I said. You can quote me on that. BECAUSE HE'S NOT A GOOD BOXER COMPARED TO TODAY'S TOP HEAVYWEIGHTS. There's a difference being unorthodox and being technically unsound. Fury is a very good boxer. Wilder isn't technically sound, he's a slugger. Didn't Baer stop Schmeling? Schmeling was definitely more technically sound than Baer. I asked you before. Which decent fighter today fights with their hands at their waist with little to no head movement, without a good sense of distance, without good counter-punching skills, and without any good parrying/blocking ability? Show me a decent fighter today who is falling off balance when he throws a jab? Show me a decent fighter today who can't maintain their boxing stance when throwing a two-punch combination? Show me a decent fighter who crosses his feet on a regular basis?
What's the finish point? Become a very good technician like Sharkey? You're in denial. Fundamentals are very important and that's why they're instilled in young amateurs. Fundamentals have led countless fighters to the hall of fame. I don't have disdain for any era. There's a lot of people that believe a good high school basketball team today could beat the NBA champions in the 40s. Is that prejudice against that specific era? You don't have to deny evolution to give the old-timers credit. The great fighters from a hundred years ago would still be great if they lost a few fantasy fights on a fukin boxing forum. My pick has nothing to do with eras. It has to do with the advancements in the sport of boxing. You know, you can keep learning about boxing after you stop boxing. You tell me where he got that boxing knowledge from. He sure didn't get it from watching Sharkey or Carnera. Joe Louis didn't make the technical errors other fighters made at the time. How was he so much better than every other heavyweight in his day? How did he run through former champions like Baer and Carnera? How am I supposed to provide evidence lol? Can you prove that boxers haven't improved over the last hundred years? All I can do is compare fighters and see for myself. And I believe fighters have improved A LOT since the 1920s. Again, a statement you'll never be able to back up. He didn't get away with it because of his size, he got away with it because of his style. If inside fighting was a necessity today, you'd see it more often. Outside fighting has always been important regardless of era. You can simply clinch today and keep your opponent from working on the inside. There is no tactic like that you can use fighting on the outside. Wladimir was excellent at tying fighters up. It has little to do with strength, it's all about technique. If I lock your arms using overhooks (double-lock), all I have to do is wait for the ref to break and we start again on the outside. I can moving forward with your arms locked and you'll be more worried about keeping your balance then freeing your arms. Wladimir could do that against anyone. Also, have you heard of John Ruiz? lmao. He was an average sized heavyweight. He became a heavyweight champion via holding and clinching, twice lol. Watch Badou Jack vs Marcus Browne. Browne didn't fight on the inside, he simply clinched the entire fight and got away with it. Both are light heavyweights. Watch Mayweather vs Maidana II (welterweights). Mayweather was much smaller than Maidana and he kept clinching when Maidana got close. You can get away without fighting on the inside today. Mayweather could fight on the inside but he didn't have to. That's my point. Ali couldn't fight on the inside either, he clinched in close range. He beat Frazier with a neck-tie in their second fight. I'm sure you'd rate Carnera much higher in this department lol. Thomas Hearns wasn't a good in-fighter either. Wasn't he technically sound though? You're ignoring the changes that have occurred over time. Wrestling was a big part of the sport since the bareknucke days. It isn't as important today. If lack of inside fighting was such a technical deficiency in Wlad's game, how come no one was ever able to make him pay for it? He fought big heavyweights in his career who were highly ranked. What are you talking about? Cruiserweight = 200 lbs. Heavyweights = 240-250 lbs. There's a big size difference here. Go back to the birth of the cruiserweight division (1980). The first great champion was Holyfield. Heavyweight champion Mike Tyson was ranked #1 p4p and Holyfield wasn't even top 10. All the way from 1980 to 2016, the best heavyweight was better than the best cruiserweight. Usyk is the first cruiserweight who is better than all the heavyweights. I don't know how you determined that the skill gap between CW and HW is the "biggest". Middleweights are generally much better than cruiserweights. 40 lbs difference there. That's probably the biggest skill gap.
OK, we clearly need to talk about stances here. A fighter with a square on stance, generally should not lean forward, unless he wishes to assume a crouch. A fighter with an off center stance like Sharkey carries his right further back, and it is normal practice for a fighter with this stance to lean forward when he strikes with his right, because this brings his right shoulder as close to the target as his left. This video does a good job of comparing the off center boxing stance, to the square stance favored by most modern fighters. This content is protected
I have nothing against unorthodox styles, provided that they can be made to work, but anybody with eyes can see that Carl Froch is not more technically sound than say Mickey Walker or Gene Tunney! This is a guy who relies on reflexes, and ability to anticipate his opponent. This content is protected
Vitally Klitschko would be the obvious example. This content is protected David Haye did alright for himself! This content is protected
The devil is in the detail when studying fight films. Here is Sharkey Carnera I Exercise A, watch this film, and only focus on what Sharkey's hands are doing. Exercise B, watch this film, and focus on what Sharkey's head is doing. This guy is a master of feinting and misdirection. You are looking at a master boxer in action. The only, repeat only person in the heavyweight division, with this kind of skill today, is Usky! This content is protected
You think Sharkey had an off-center stance? I see his head right in the center. Schmeling I & II, Carnera I & II, and Dempsey fights. I don't see an off center stance. Everyone carries their right hand back. That's why we use terms like lead hand and rear hand. The narrower your stance is, the further back your right hand will be. Look at Floyd Mayweather's stance. It's one of the narrowest stances you'll see, nothing is exposed. Have you ever seen Floyd off balance when he throws his right? Bernard Hopkins stance was pretty narrow. These fighters don't lose their balance when they throw the right hand. Neither did Joe Louis. Leaning forward slightly is normal when you throw the right hand. You're shifting your weight to the lead leg. I wasn't talking about Sharkey leaning forward with his right. It's his jab he leans forward with. That's a major technical error. Why did you pick this fight lol? This is Froch right at the end of his career. Froch was getting outboxed by a very good fighter. A fighter who is more technically sound than him. Groves was younger and much faster than Froch too. Simply put, Groves was the better fighter. Froch is fighting with his hands down as he always does. His right hand isn't that low though. He's still moving his head and his feet. He's just too slow to react to Groves' punches. Afterall, this is a 36 year old man fighting a 25 year old. The younger fighter is not only more athletic but he's also the better boxer. This is like bringing out Dempsey-Tunney I when analyzing Dempsey. He was 31 years old fighting someone who was 2 years younger and a better boxer than him. How about Carl's performance against Abraham or Pascal? Does Vitali Klitschko not show good head movement here? And good movement in general. He's constantly moving and attacking from different angles. He has a great sense of distance as you can see in this fight. Peter is falling short with his punches. Vitali is just out of range. He isn't leaning all the way back, he's pulling out of range while moving his feet. That's the difference here. The fact that Vitali is constantly moving, he doesn't have to lean back too much. And look at how Vitali parries and blocks punches when Peter does get close. His hands aren't always at his waist. It all depends on the distance. That's someone who knows how to control distance. This is 37 year old Vitali Klitschko coming off a 4 year layoff. And he's fighting the 2nd best heavyweight in the world. He literally schooled him. Same thing with Haye. Great reflexes, great head movement. He also showed great footwork in this fight. In and out movement and lateral movement in particular. I never said fighting with your hands down is a technical error. But you gotta show some head movement and sense of distance. That's what I didn't see in Sharkey's fights. Fighting with your hands down without head movement is suicide. I can land every counter if you rarely move your head and keep your hands at your waist. There's no reason Sharkey should be eating Carnera's jab. Look at Haye vs Valuev. Similar fight. Big, slow fighter vs small, quick fighter. Haye was slipping punches without any problem. I also think Haye would have knocked Carnera out.
OK! An "off center stance" means that one shoulder id further away from your opponent than the other. This puts the head slightly off the center line, but not enormously so. If the fighter is orthodox, then their left shoulder is further forward, so they have to duck to close distance with their right hand. A "square stance" implies that the fighters shoulders are an equal distance from the opponent, which means that their right can be thrown as easily as the left. I hope that this clarifies. My point is that Froch enjoyed considerable success with this style, which you would hold up as being "an error that amateurs wouldn't get away with today", if some fighter from the 30s did it! You are basing your entire argument for Breazle beating the best of the 30s, on the idea that "he had certain fundamentals that they didn't!" What Froch, Klitschko, and Haye demonstrate, is that fighters have success in every era without these fundamentals. They also demonstrate that fighters like Breazle come up short in every era!
Nah, it doesn't. Who's stance is that square? You right shoulder will always be behind your left if you're an orthodox fighter. That's how it works. Your shoulders are never at an equal distance from your opponent. If both my shoulders were next to each other, why shouldn't I jab with my right? Why do orthodox fighters still jab with their left? If they were so squared, it shouldn't really make a difference. No one stands completely square. The only way you can do that is if you feet were on the same horizontal line. If your right fight is behind your left foot (orthodox stance), your body will naturally rotate and align itself to your feet. That's like day 1 stuff. Determining your stance. I don't think you know what you're talking about lol. Cuz according to your definition, fighters still use off-center stance. Watch Anthony Joshua and tell me his shoulders are squared. Sharkey's stance was just like every average fighter out there. Nothing special. Joe Louis on the other hand did have an off center stance. His head was slightly off the centerline. You're still hanging on to Froch lol. He fights with his hands down. I never said fighting with your hands down is a technical error. I've also told you that skill gap can be overcome with tenacity and mental toughness. No one has ever called Froch a technically sound fighter. He is technically sound if we compare him to 1920s or 30s fighters but no so much when he's compared to someone like Andre Ward. "which you would hold up as being "an error that amateurs wouldn't get away with today", if some fighter from the 30s did it!" This is a desperate move on your part. You know exactly what error I was referring to when I made that comment. It was Sharkey leaning forward when he jabbed to cover distance and he ended up off-balance, 7 times in one round. Froch never did that. I've seen amateurs fight with their hands low. Some of them are just exceptional athletes. Froch didn't make errors amateurs wouldn't get away with. He was a world-class fighter. He made errors a world-class fighter wouldn't get away with and he didn't. He lost to Ward and Kessler. He was outboxed by Taylor and Groves. Also, if Froch fought in the 30s, you'd probably call him a "very good" technician. lol Froch didn't have good defense but he had really good offense. Froch had an excellent jab and his straight punches were technically sound. People underrate his footwork. He avoided a lot of punches by simply moving his feet. Froch was also one of the toughest fighters of his era. Froch had a great gas tank too. That's how Froch had considerable success. Let's not act like he had the technical ability of a journeyman. Froch was a good boxer. If you aren't going to move your head, keep your hands up. It's very simple. Breazeale understands that. "What Froch, Klitschko, and Haye demonstrate, is that fighters have success in every era without these fundamentals." Nope. That's what you think they demonstrate. I think I've been very clear with my argument. Vitali, Haye, Froch moved their head (Froch being the worst). They all had good jabs. They all knew how to manage distance. If you don't abide by certain fundamentals, you replace them with something that suits your style better. Fundamental high guard can be replaced with a low guard if you have good reflexes and sense of distance. That's what Vitali and Haye did. I don't really know why Froch did it. It doesn't mean Froch never moved his head. Breazeale doesn't have head movement so he keeps his hands up. Joshua doesn't have good head movement so he keeps his hands up. Wladimir fought with a low lead and his right hand was somewhere in the middle. He replaced high guard with a more advanced long guard. And he had an all-time great jab as well. You can look at guys like Sergio Martinez and Joe Calzaghe. Low hands but they move their head. Froch's lack of guard was still a technical fault. Because he didn't have great reflexes or head movement. But he did have good movement, he was constantly moving. As I said before, he did other things right that made up for his mediocre defense. One would be a granite chin. He had really good offence and punching power. Even if he did fight like some fighters of the 20s with his hands down and no head movement. He still had a great jab, good footwork and counter punching skills. He was still more technically sound than the middleweights of 20s and 30s.
So just pointing out it is fight at the end of the day you do realize Wilder who knocked out Breazeale throws prob some of the worst techinally correct punches in all of heavyweight history going back to Jack Johnsons time! RIght? lol and he is effective right?? Sure made quick work out of Breazeale with that huge telegraphed right hand lol... Yes go into any boxing gym and realize its not about who has the best techinque its about who is the better fighter at the end of the day! Who can whoop who and Wilder is living proof!
You think so? You think his jab is the worst since Jack Johnson's days? Everyone knows he telegraphs his right hand at times but he's not the first person to do that. And he's a great athlete. He has the fastest hands in the heavyweight division. You think that right hand he hit Breazeale with was telegraphed? That's how I know you don't really know much about Wilder. What he did against Breazeale is his signature move. It's misdirection. Decoy jab followed by a right hand. Go and watch the replay of that right hand in slow-mo and you'll see that Wilder barely touched Breazeale with his jab. The jab is there to distract Breazeale so Wilder can get leverage for his right. He jabbed and loaded up his right hand at the same time. And when he jabbed, he actually stepped outside with his lead foot so he can follow through properly. Breazeale sees the jab coming in and the low right hand and he sees an opportunity to counter. He throws a lead uppercut but Wilder beat him to the punch. If Wilder threw a proper 1-2, he might not have landed the right. He'd throw a proper jab and then throw the right hand. Here, he started throwing the right hand as the jab was still travelling. Emmanuel Steward taught Lennox Lewis something similar. When smaller fighters used to come to Lennox, he used to blind them with his left (decoy jab) and lower his right hand simultaneously and hit them with a rear uppercut when they don't expect it. That infamous uppercut against Vitali was done in a similar fashion. Lennox throws a left hook and lowers his rear hand at the same time and lands that vicious uppercut on Vitali. It's faster than a normal left hook-right uppercut combo and less predictable because you get hit with the second punch while the first punch is still out there. That's what Wilder does. Decoy jab to disguise his right hand. Not the worst technique imo. I have been in a boxing gym and technique matters. There's a reason trainers are standing ringside and shouting at you when you make a mistake. Why wouldn't they just let people duke it out? Wilder is living proof of nothing tbh. A puncher doing puncher things. That's all. He was outboxed clearly by a fat Tyson Fury. He was also outboxed by a 40 year old Ortiz. What happened when he went after Ortiz like an idiot? He almost got stopped in the 7th round eating punch after punch on the ropes. Wilder thought he was clever. He kept hitting Ortiz's lead hand to set up his right. Ortiz noticed this and kept his lead low so Wilder had to bring his own lead low. Ortiz was a step ahead here. When Wilder checked the lead, he loaded up on his right at the same time (same garbage technique again). Ortiz saw that and countered with a perfect right hook which landed because Wilder's lead hand was too low. Why was Wilder not effective here? It's all about who can whoop who, isn't it? That was a great counter with great technique by Ortiz. Ortiz also outboxed Wilder with superior technical ability. Better lead hand control and better distance management. Look at the knockdown in round 5. Wilder dropped him with a perfect straight right. He couldn't land his clubbing/looping right hands in the early rounds. How about the knockdown in the 10th? Wilder pulled Ortiz in. Ortiz was reaching for Wilder by leaning forward and when he threw his straight left, he was off balance and Wilder countered with a perfect right hand. Technique son. If Wilder had loaded up on his right hand when he was moving back, he might've missed too and nothing would've come of it. Using good technique won him this fight. Ortiz got up and continued fighting. Wilder missed most his punches when he followed up because of poor technique (16 punches). When he finally calmed down and had a hurt Ortiz in front him, all he did was throw a straight right hand again and down went Ortiz. He finally finished him with a right uppercut. Both fighters paid for their technical errors in that fight and the other made them pay for it with superior technique. This is just one fighter and one fight. I can go on and on about technique. You can say Wilder is proof that technical ability doesn't matter. Who has Wilder beaten? I can bring up Wladimir Klitschko, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis to show you that it does matter. Wilder isn't even 1/10th of a fighter those men were. If he was as great as Wladimir, maybe I'd reconsider my stance. Wilder is a huge puncher with decent skills. His jab and his straight right are two of his best punches. And they are certainly not the worst in the last hundred years. Maybe he would have beaten Fury if he had better technique. Who knows. But he did eventually land on Fury, didn't he? When he finally threw a right hand that wasn't telegraphed. Technique matters in everything. There will always be unorthodox athletes. Shawn Marion had terrible form but he was a good shooter. But most people who shoot that way are terrible shooters.
