If every boxer fought like Hamed, would it be sustainable?

Imagine a version of boxing where the Ingle style of training and boxing is the dominant one.

Every major gym trains people to fight like Hamed. Every major coach has been trained by other Ingle-style fighters, who in turn learned from even earlier Ingle fighters.

How sustainable would such a situation be? Would you expect an orthodox style of boxing to rapidly develop, due to it being the objectively "better" way to box? Or would the dominance of Hamed/Ingle boxing prevent anybody except a few oddballs in marginal gyms from learning to fight like normal boxers do today?

 

Honestly, your trolling would be a lot more effective if you hadn't already been exposed as a guy with four accounts who pretended to have sparred Jirov. And who tried to convince the forum that he'd died and was speaking from the grave.

It robs the shtick of any bite, you know?

(For those who are curious: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...rov-holmes-toney-tua-and-a-few-others.667296/.)

 

Please ply your act elsewhere and stop derailing this thread. You've already started two perfectly fine troll threads of your own, which have posters who believe you're real. Go there:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...sugar-ray-leonard-or-oscar-de-la-hoya.672685/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...sugar-ray-leonard-or-oscar-de-la-hoya.672685/

 

Jokes aside, the broader issue is to wonder to how much the current orthodoxy in boxing style depends on institutional support and tradition rather than any vast difference in effectiveness.

@janitor and @BitPlayerVesti, for example, occasionally cite Hamed as an example of a successful fighter who shows that the modern style isn't the only acceptable option.

Ingle built an alternative system and pretty much did everything that a single trainer could do to prove it worked under modern conditions. So in a way, this scenario gets at whether boxing could have gone another way, and settled upon a different style as the default. Or whether the forum believes that the orthodox style was inevitable.

 

I do wonder to what extent the Barrera/Hamed fight is over-cited. By the time Hamed lost to Barrera -- who was, let's remember, a great fighter -- he had already gotten to the top of the sport and beaten a lot of good orthodox fighters. His victims were also at the top of the sport. Sometimes a fighter just loses, even in his prime. We don't say Douglas or Liston disproved the peekaboo style's effectiveness, even though both of those guys beat highly talented peekaboo champions in their primes.

It seems to be the Ingle style's misfortune that its foremost representative married a style that made orthodox coaches go cross-eyed with an obnoxious persona. One wonders whether it would have been taken more seriously if there wasn't the urge to discredit Naz as having always been smoke and mirrors. (Not saying you specifically do this, but I've sometimes wondered whether it's the motivation for others' casual dismissals of Naz's style.)

 

The other Ingle fighters apparently have similarities to Naz as well.