The Ingle style doesn't cut it at world level!

Never heard of Floyd Patterson, Chris?

 

Not to mention Jose Torres.

Cus is a bad example to throw into the mix because his style of training was more conventional. With Ingle everything is unorthodox and does away with almost all the fundamentals of boxing. Cus' approach was geared more towards pressure fighters, but Ingle's approach needs a freaky kid.

 

you know what i meant

 

That's one thing Emmanuel Steward always says. He doesn't try to do a complete overhaul of a boxer's style. He'll just refine it. Unless you're training a guy since he's a kid you can't mould his style into the exact type of your liking. You gotta work with what you have and tweak it.

 

Look, Herol Graham was simply an Ali influenced fighter who put his own quirks on things(less emphasis on jab-one-two and more on the reflexive defence and counterpunching)as many of that era did.

It's most likely he did simply evolve to fight that way himself.Certainly no other Ingle fighters around that time fought like that.Offensively Graham himself was capable of being quite orthodox and schooled, especially in comparison to those who came after him from the gym.No one will compare him to Louis or Curry etc for being 100% textbook in execution all the time, but he knew how to throw all the single shots correctly, jab, proper extended combination punching, shortening shots on the inside etc

his defensive footwork was founded on a proper balanced base as well, miles away from the improvised unchooled likes of Witter and Hamed etc.

It was on the defensive end where he was fundamentally unsound, but it was nothing new really.A number of fighters had used the lean and sway away reflexive stuff before.Some extremely successful.

His relative success seemed to see Ingle try and base EVERYONE from the same mould, except the areas where Graham was relatively orthodox(that helped balance out the unorthodox defensive approach)went out the window.Now if this was because Ingle's team can't teach proper punching and footwork i don't know, but a complete lack of an educated lead hand, lunging telegraphed bombs from any angle and appalling technically inept footwork became the norm...to go along with the Ali influenced defensive stuff.

This worked to a good extent with Hamed because he was an A level athletic specimen with monstrous natural power, but it's pretty obviously been a thoroughly inneficient and pointless approach.

I've never seen an Ingle fighter who i didn't think had got as far as they had through their own natural ability and were ultimately held back by a vastly flawed fighting approach.

As a technical trainer the guy is a conman who has been teaching his fighters to pull their head straight back from punches for 20 odd years as if it's some holy grail of boxing technique.I know he's done a lot of good for the community, getting kids off the streets etc, but simply judging him as a professional boxing trainer imo he's got little to offer a fighter they couldn't get elsewhere.

 

The Ingle style is really poor ,pulling your head straight back, switching so many times that you confuse yourself and reall dreadful punching technique.

Witter throwing the right hand and falling out of the ring in prizefighter tell you everything you need to know about the sheffield gym.

 

Another stupid post, Brenden Ingle is one of the most sucessfull trainers to come out of Britain, with a host of world champions over the years, so that means most other trainers are rubbish then ? because he was one of the best, Nas held his world title for over 5 years at world level, defending against world level fighters, Witter was a world champ, Graham lost a close decisionto one of the best fighters ever The Body Snatcher, who Hearns and Hagler avoided.

 

I love it, but I agree with everything said. It's fundamentally flawed, but I just love the style. I love fighters like Witter and Nelson because of it, and Naz obviously. It's a shame it's so **** and reflex orientated.

 

I hate it, it doesn't just not cut it at world level - most fighters who use it struggle at domestic level.

I've said this a million times and it's worth repeating - there's a reason the orthodox style evolved. And it's not because it's better to switch stance every 30 seconds.

 

I think I know exactly where he's coming from though.

Do you not think that Torres, and Patterson were suited to Cus' style, but Tyson was born for that style...like fate brought them together.

Same with Ingle & Nas...or maybe they just got lucky, and alot of fighters dont peak because they end up with trainers who are wrong for them early in their careers. We will never know :?

 

:good

 

How many world champions, european champions and British/Commonwealth champions has Ingle had in comparison with our other trainers?

I guess no one on here thought Rhodes got beat by a very very good fighter and Rhodes himself is too old for the game and has spent far too long sat waiting for his big fight?

 

No, it most certainly doesn't..... Look for Kell Brook to get wiped out the first time he meets a genuine world-class opponent. In fact if it would be a great first fight for Khan to test the waters at 147.

 

I don't really understand the point of this thread. What styles do work against elite level opposition then? It's easy to pick holes in a style and yes, certainly what the Ingle's have is a very unorthodox way of boxing but to say it's flawed at world level is wrong. Plenty of Ingle fighters have gone on to be world champions.

 

I'm not sure it's the Ingle style that's the problem, it's the fighters themselves.

Sometimes they're too eager to attempt to confuse the opponent rather than just fighting in the style.

If you take Witter as an example, his two best punches were his left and right hooks - and when he planted his feet and let them go he was devastating. But too often he stood there with his arms held high switching every ten seconds.

It's probably fair to say that Brook is the most orthodox of any Ingle fighter I can think of, though he still shares some of those bad traits, leaving his chin hanging out, sometimes not throwing enough punches etc.

There is a shelf-life for that kind of style though it's fair to say. A man like Rhodes can easily make domestic level fighters miss and probably could for another five years, but we saw against Alvarez that he was caught too easily and couldn't get out of the way of the shots coming his way.

What I do like about the style is that it encourages harder punching. Too many of our fighters at the minute are feather fisted, there's a distinct lack of bangers in British boxing.

Take Haye out of the equation, there's Froch, Bellew..... after that not a right lot. Buckland can punch, Macklin has a decent dig too, Price and Groves perhaps.