Explaining why old boxers make basic mistakes

It is kind of like the old saying, You Cannot Teach An Old Dog New Tricks. An older fighter may underestimate his younger opponent. That is why a great fighter takes every fight seriously, he prepares his body through rigorous training, sparring and roadwork. He has to have that mindset that all opponents are dangerous.

 

Amen.

It stands to reason, if they didn't know any good techniques, and didn't understand how to defend, then they probably didn't know how to jab or punch either, so they didn't get hit more. Maybe they just posed, clinched, and danced around in there? I don't remember the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's that way, but maybe my memory's faulty. Maybe I'm mixing up Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers with Joe Louis and Jersey Joe Walcott.

 

well yea I agree would make sense if the tech they tried worked if they got hit less

maybe they felt like it still wasnt good enough which is why they didnt stick to it

having film allows the person to see a different way of something used that they might not have tried or knew of

 

This content is protected

 

Alongside my original post, here is a post I made on another forum (concerning Jimmy Wilde and the general era of the time). My opinion on this is pretty cemented so I'm unlikely to debate it anymore (as I have done for years). People don't really change their minds anyway.

"Wilde was known as unorthodox in his time in regards to technique and approach. Driscoll was the orthodox technician.

Also, the biggest impact on Boxing styles are rulesets and equipment. The reality is that the Walker Law being passed is what started the 'modern era' of Boxing styles. What other sport has such a drastic 'evolution' in just a few short years? The answer is that there was no 'evolution', people just took what they knew, what they were already doing, and accordingly changed or applied it to the new standardised rule and equipment sets set by the Walker Law (this is also why American Boxers are the first to look 'modern' on film, since the law was originally American centric). The actual 'evolution' of Boxing happened between 1890 - 1910 at the latest, since MoQ gloved boxing is, really, almost a completely different sport to LPR and bare knuckle, and so large scale changes happened accordingly. Wilde would be able to adapt to more modern rulesets eventually, just as a top fighter today would eventually adapt to older rulesets if they were suddenly enforced, changing their style. IMO the full development of modern Boxing technique was done by the 1910's, it's just the rulesets were still very much different. Then you have equipment influences. Smaller gloves means lower guards and more parrying, modern attached thumbs mean less parrying techniques and higher ounces increase the effectiveness of a high guard etc etc blah blah. Wilde specifically has intangibles (such as monster power and great distance judgement) that would translate to absolutely any era anyway.

It's why I don't like matching fighters of disparate eras unless ruleset and equipment is specified. Wilde beats Canto in the 1910s. Canto beats him in the 1970s. That's my opinion on this one. Of course, with other fighters some are just simply better (talent, style etc) regardless of era or equipment, but not enough people take note of this stuff imo."

 

Sometimes I wish I could like your posts twice or even thrice.

 

This topic seems to be popular on the forum again, so bump.

 

Many of these mistakes happen on purpose a lot of the time. In Edwin L Haislet's book, there's a segment where he talks about parrying a blow while extending your rear arm by quite a bit. That's a classic mistake, as it leaves you vulnerable to a left hook since you're left open. You should only make the hand travel the smallest amount of distance necessary, that same book says so as well. So why do it ? Because it leaves you open. You can expect a left hook to come due to that opening you just made, and you can proactively duck it and counter it whichever way you choose.

There are other examples, like Jersey Joe Walcott crossing his feet and squaring up only to be in a position where he can counter you. Jose Napoles having a very predictable back and forth rhythm that can easily be timed, only for him to suddenly break that rhythm when an opponent does time it, in order to then counter that. He KO'd Ernie Lopez that exact way. There are many other examples.

Rules are meant to be broken if you know when to break them and have the ability to take advantage. Why not cross your feet if you're not at punching range ? Or if they help you maneuver in a way that helps you avoid a blow ? etc etc. I'm not saying that old fighters never did genuine mistakes, but in a lot of cases it's just less observant fans falsely accusing them. It's just a case of knowing what works and what doesn't.

 

I watch enough modern/current boxing to say without equivocation that many of today’s prime artists veer from the ‘properly taught rules’ with varying degrees of success (generally attributable to ability and athletic skill).

Naz under Ingle was unorthodox but did OK for himself, Roy Jones Jr was unorthodox and brilliantly so. But if you really look, each is fighting a style as taught that was unconventional. Roy Jr’s style evolved over time but the basis of it I’ve seen in person with other fighters taught by Roy Sr … it starts with letting the other guy jab and everything working off countering that. We used to run across Pensacola fighters all the time in the amateurs and if you studied their ways you’d figure out what to do … but if you’d never seen it they’d probably pick your guy apart — sort of like running option football against a defense that’s not prepared for it.

Some guys in Philly for a long time adapted the Joe Frazier style. Is that right or wrong? Ali had a lot of influence over fighters who began to float (and sometimes flit) around the ring in imitation. The Philly shell became in vogue with Mayweather. Etc.

There are a lot of variations on style. There also always have been and always will be fighters who stick their chins up — and they usually pay a price. Hard as it is for someone who has never coached to believe, boxers (and other athletes) aren’t puppets … you can tell a guy 1,000 times not to lift his chin when he jabs, you can put a cloth or sponge or whatever under that chin so he has to tuck it in the gym to keep it from falling … and in a fight sometimes guys revert to type and repeat old mistakes. Pick your most classic, correct stylist — say Arguello or Sal Sanchez — and see how confident you are in betting your mortgage that I can’t find a photo or freeze-frame a video to show you that even they, upon occasion, lifted their chins.

It’s true in all sport. The greatest running back fumbles sometimes. The greatest QB throws an interception. The best pitcher throws a fatty that gets swatted for a home run. The greatest soccer player sometimes ruins a scoring opportunity by not having the discipline to stay onsides. Etc. To err is human.

 

Film to me is the reason for the revolution of the sport. It’s no coincidence that the more filming fights became popular the more styles were sharpened up, mechanics improved, the secrets were revealed. The good was kept and bad discarded. Even today boxing gyms are like secret organizations. Every damn one I’ve went into I’ve learned something new and interesting (sometimes good sometimes useless but interesting). The point is the secrets that weren’t privy to every fighter now were on film. So you could watch it over and over and see openings, learn new feints, combos, footwork etc. This dramatically changes the sport and it’s obvious. That being said I think they were fine athletes as were 90s mma guys but they didn’t have the knowledge that came after them. I understand why they did certain things much of it had to do with rules and gloves (also number of rounds is inportant guys didn’t throw as much then they paced themselves for long bouts) but much of it was also bad mechanics. You can c signs of good mechanics occasionally someone had a jab that looked ok not perfect but a start but once the 30s came along most fighters knew by then they needed a good jab. They learned head movement feints etc.

 

Uh, because boxers are imperfect, fallible human beings, not automatons?