You are another guy from skimming those threads that views things thru a modern lens (lol right hands slower inthe classic stance wtf) and no they dont know more than me (grey perhaps) not the rest of em. Also at 1 minute and 7 seconds how did bombardier wells defend that jab from gunner Moir with his hands down ? and at 1 minute and 30 seconds how did Wells avoid those shots from Moir with his hands down? Lets keep this on topic with what I was trying to do !
Thanks for the insult. I didn't even mention this point in my post or criticise it specifically, so why bring it up? You know some of the threads I linked are literally by Sinister or have his responses, right? Seems like you're the one doing the skimming. A lot of the points you mention are even made by myself and others, and your other ones are just garbled and hard to grasp. Is English your first language? You know not every single post is some huge breakdown, right? Some of these threads are 5 to 10 pages long, and you're supposed to read through them all to see development of opinions, different ideas and even concessions on mistakes (which I have definitely done, and which others have done to me). You obviously haven't even skimmed properly as you can't seem to see some of these threads are from Sinister or he is one of the first 5 responses. Firstly, the aim of protecting the hands is correlated with the stance, not the main aim obviously. The reason it is mentioned is because protecting the hands was originally a major issue, as the history of the stance / style goes back to the bare knuckle era, the full history of the stylistic components going as far back as before LPR, as in as far back as guys like Broughton and Slack etc. This would have still been an issue, though more minor, 'till fighters started wearing larger gloves and finish fights, 20 rounders etc. were eradicated, so basically the early to mid '20s. However, styles don't change overnight, and a lot of the components were kept around well until the '50s. Fighters like Bob Fitzsimmons and Jim Jefferies, for example, absolutely had stylistic components in order to save their hands. In fact, Fitzsimmons was one of the first modern fighters to wear hand wraps. Then you have guys like Gans learning from Fitzsimmons in his training camp, then you have Kid chocolate learning from Gans, and then you have Ray Robinson emulating Chocolate as an idol early on. This already takes you the 1940s, but with a style component kept from an earlier fighter from a different context. It's the same thing with the body punching - liver and solar plexus are both destructive spots and targets which will not hurt the hand when hit with the bare knuckles. It's even stated in old books such as 'The Complete Boxer' by J. G Lynch, 1914, plus those 1800's manuals I literally linked before. Can't go hell for leather on the cranium when you have no gloves. These body spots as a major target again stem from the LPR and before, where the hands were a major source of problems when injured and finish fights were the norm. All these points are important to note as the history of the 'Classical' style derives from older styles which took these points into account, majorly. Knowing the older history and context is vital in order to understand the whole points of the style and its usage. It's pretty useful to know when studying fighters like Archie Moore, for example, as one of his major trainers, Haiwatha Grey, was a bare knuckle fighter who actually fought in matches before 1900. He taught Moore the finer points of the cross arm guard, and due to the fragility and importance the view of hands were at that time, we can make a reasonable guess that the cross arm guard wasn't used to only defend straights but also to injury the other mans hands, which could cause forfeit or stoppage opportunities. Just an example. You would be foolish to ignore situational context and equipment related context in the development of Boxing styles and technique. Firstly, you're mixing up two points from several different threads. Seriously, fix your comprehension. Your point about hiding the right hand is actually mentioned, anyway. This point is also made in a few of the threads linked, including by Sinister himself and by his student who made the Charley Burley video. You're not wrong here and I actually agree with you. Secondly, the right hand is slower in the Classic stance. Not by some laughable amount (which you seem to be inferring by your hyperbolic statements) but a marginal difference, however Boxing is a game of margins, and the right from this Classic stance both has benefits and drawbacks. The focus on planting the back foot to naturally raise the shoulder means that torque on the right is more prominent, and it has to travel a slight further distance across the body. Sitting in this stance also means combo punching is slightly inferior to the modern stance in terms of speed. Doubling the right is also slightly more troublesome. A fighter like Chavez, for example, would be much less effective using it as he relied on doubling and leading with his right with maximum speed, as the modern stance, with both shoulders at a uniform height and distance, allows for a slightly quicker turnover into the punch and leaves the rear shoulder closer to the opponent. This 'disadvantage' is negated by the 'natural' defence of the shoulder and the off-line angle of the head, which in turn provides for counters with the 'hidden' right just as you mention. What's funny is that you mention sinister to try and discredit me, but I picked up this point of theory from Sinister himself. Seriously, read his threads and you'll find it. His student also made some excellent videos on YouTube which mention the same thing I have. [continued]
This point is literally a foundation that is repeatedly stated in most of the posts and video I linked, which you obviously skimmed or didn't even read. Again, you seem to have struggles with reading comprehension. Irrelevant. At least I can understand their sentences and points made. If you are going to respond to me, please actually read carefully through all the posts you are criticising and fix your awful grammar. These debates, as I've said, have been done to death for over 13 years and you are not an interesting enough poster to keep going back and forth with.
You wrote your response assuming I didnt read all your lil posts I said the sinister posts were gold and look out for comments by sinister ,a guy , disciplus is another one who hosts the heavy hands podcast also the hand position is not for protecting the hands , it doesnt matter where you hold your hands the point is you can break you hand when you hit the head whether they are in high guard or low guard, the aim of the lower hands was to protect the body . I am not gonna go back and forward with you on this , your assessment is wrong. The hands are for controlling the range and keeping the threat on the opponent at all times(again read more posts from sinister on sherdog and watch the film) if the hands are pointed at the opponent its hard for the opponent to step in without getting hit ,This is also in that ****ing burley video you didnt watch completely or didnt understand the point that was made there. Hands glued to the head and you lost the intiatiive(again its in the burley video) Modern high guard has no remedy for giving away the intiative its an inferior stance I am not going back and forth on this. I have that book by lynch , I have all of driscolls books , I have carpientiers book, I have the klaus book, I have philadelphia Jack O briens book. Dempseys book , Haislets book and Rocky marcianos book I have done research dude ,trust. Grey is tied to burley as well I know who grey is That Burley video was made by Dadi aostorphsson not a student but a similar trainer who arrived at the same conclusion as Sinister , he has posts on ****** under the name dadia as well as another video (on ezzard charles) . You are not correct about your assessment on the classic stance either a. Sinister wouldnt talk about speed as a measure of landing punches its about position.So the slightly less speed(or whatever you made up) is not important in the long run ,because its about positioning and getting your opponent out of their positioning.(drawing the lead or getting them to not react to feints anymore) now back to the topic what exactly is going on at the moments i mentioned in this video I posted at 1 min 7 seconds how did the guy in black not eat that jab with his hands down (this will give you an idea of how it was possible to avoid getting jab with hands lowered) at 1 min 30 seconds how did gunner not get hit with that combination I know the answers but I dont wanna spoon feed yall, I need yall to analyze and think about this stuff properly!
I DM him all the time with really trivial stuff. He responds pretty often if he isn't busy and I feel like I am having a conversation with Eddie Futch or something.
An interesting thing about styles.... It is pretty easy to consider the old bare knuckle guys to be cavemen, and maybe they were, but it is undeniable that they were thinking all the time, and were aware of how one thing affects the other, and the knowledge that they passed on was pure gold. I don't think that it is possible to overstate the Influence that the "St Paul Style" had in the development of boxing. In reading Son Of Fargo by @KasimirKid, I was struck by how many gyms were in St Paul and how many fighters came from there. In my own experience, knowing somebody from St Paul who knew other people from St Paul opened doors for me into the mid 2000s. A hallmark of the style, and you can see the Influence in many fighters and the way they fought, just like you can see where it came from, was drawing leads and countering. The thing is that the other guy is doing the same thing, thinking and planning, and if neither guy gets what he is looking for, there is a clinch. Because a professional doesn't operate at random so you tie up and start over. Over time different guys in different gyms came up with variations on the theme. Guys like Cus D'amato. Tyson fought that way, looking to draw a lead and countering. And when he didn't get it he was willing to clinch and start over. This happened more as he fought more guys that were better and were thinking back. There are a couple of reasons that guys don't fight like that so much anymore. First, it takes time to learn it and somebody has to teach it because so much of it is so specific. Not many really understand it these days, though almost all of it is very basic but it takes time and repetition and patience isn't as common as it once was. Second, and this is the big one, it is a timing based strategy- not reflex based, and timing and reflexes are not the same thing. As a timing based approach it requires constant practice; you drill in the gym and you fight a lot. A guy isn't going to maintain that level of timing fighting every 90 days, especially if he takes time off during that 90 days. And I think that it gets a little harder to get sharp every time you do it. You can see that in Tyson, too. When his fights had longer times between them, and he started taking more time off, he turned a timing style into one based on reflexes.
