Are we seeing the rise of Boxing 3.0?

Anybody who knows me know that I never rank fighters on the all time P4P list for whom less than 10 videos exist. But in addition to that, I also separate all time lists into two categories, modern boxing and classical boxing.

The way I see it, boxing (at least in the 20th and 21st century) is really two different sports. There is the sport with the small gloves and two guys who stand in front of each other and trade hooks and uppercuts for 18 rounds, and then there is the sport which became a science. I credit Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis for inventing and ushering in the modern boxing era, and I credit Cassius Clay for standardizing it. As such, those four mark both the beginning of the modern boxing era and make the four forefathers that are the pillars of my ATG list. Their introduction into the sport was very much like the transition phase between the Neanderthal and the modern man, and you saw the results with these four absolutely feasting on their backward competition until the rest of the sport could catch up. I would argue that the modern era didn't become firmly established as the "main" style of boxing until almost 1970 (probably ushered in by the 1968 Olympic teams). But it's that gradual extermination of the classic boxers at the hands of the modern boxers that is one of the biggest reasons why I never pit or comment on threads pitting a boxer in the modern era against a boxer in the classic era of boxing. The differences in training and strategy and preparation and technique are too vast to ever honesty give the classic boxer an advantage over a modern professional.

For the past 30 years or so, we've seen this modern style employed and furthered by a contemporary group of greats who continued to refine and enhance the techniques developed by the forefathers. This style mainly employs a lot of movement, setting up 1-2 power punches by working off the jab, and generally fighting from the outside until circumstances dictate moving in.

Now, however, I'm beginning to see what could be the start of a third iteration of boxing, with the forefathers being the likes of Roy Jones and (dare I say it?) Floyd Mayweather. This version at first glance looks simply like a highly refined version of the normal modern style (particularly Sugar Ray Leonard's style), but it's evolved, in my opinion, to the point of it being an entirely new style. In this style, there is a much stronger emphasis on in-and-out movement, defense, the athletic portion of boxing, with greater and greater use of training for speed, even moreso than that employed by Leonard. To a degree this is the product of how the Olympics are conducted now, but Jones and Mayweather (both products of the Olympics) have adapted this style for professional use. And now, looking at the current generation of young boxers, we see this style as being quite distinct from the boxing we've all come to know.

Consider Chad Dawson, Andre Ward and Andre Dirrell. Surely the similarity in their respective styles is apparent, and taken as a group, looks quite like a subset branch of boxing. It's an adapted amateur style that I'm seeing more and more in the mainstream as the former Olympians rise in prominence and inherit the reins of the sport. But is this a good thing?

One striking thing I've noticed about this new style of boxing is that it's not very well received by the public or by judges. The emphasis on what I'll call "Boxing 3.0" seems to be firmly on defense - staying on the outside, working the jab, then using athleticism to leap in, land one or two punches, then leap back out and continue to circle. We've seen some rousing success in this style, but we've also seen silent audiences who see a lack of engagement and risk taking. We've also seen some controversial decisions based on judges not "understanding" the strategy of non-engagement employed. It appears we are in the same period of adjustment and internal strife now that we were in during the mid-1940s to 1960s between competing styles and people struggling to adapt their perceptions to it.

There are many contributing factors to the rise of this style. One is the Olympic boxing culture which has changed its emphasis to more of a "tag" style than in the past and weeded out a lot of the power punchers in favor of speedy athletic types who can score more points and prevent points being scored against them. A second is the perceived success and longevity of defensive fighters - there is a very real fear of winding up a quivering, stuttering mess and for many fighters, it's a cost too high to become a "warrior". Third is advances in nutrition and sports medicine has allowed for the athletic style to flourish over a longer period of time. Boxers can employ athletics well into their 30s or even 40s, especially combined with shorter fights (10-12 rounds), and fewer fights per year (4-5 during prospect phase, 3-4 during contender stage, 1-3 during champion phase). Power and engagement are beginning to fall by the wayside as boxers increasingly concerned with longevity both in and out of the sport and far more conscious of their overall career path. More than ever, the young crop of fighters weigh the benefits of "crowd pleasing" with the benefits of work-life management and find the former wanting.

I predict that we're going to be seeing more and more of Boxing 3.0 and over the next decade will become the "default" style of fighting. Only time will tell whether this spells a resurgence or the end of boxing.

Has anybody else noticed this trend? Where do you see it going in the near and distant future? Does this portend good or ill? Discuss!

 

I would submit this as an article, but I haven't the slighest idea how.

 

Hey, I'm a journeyman now! And it only took two years, lol.

 

But that's the thing. The other styles only "seem" unchanged because we're in the transition phase. When I think of Boxing 2.0, we saw a fundamental shift over the better part of two decades that not only affected the "boxers", but it affected the punchers and brawlers as well. Everybody adopted the Boxing 2.0 style as their base.

I suspect we may see the same thing happening now, where first the pure boxers take on Boxing 3.0, but then we'll see it being used by the power punchers, and the brawlers as well. You'll just start seeing the brawlers employing angles and in-and-out athletics as well. The only difference is that the engagement phase will be longer than with boxers. But I do think that, largely because of the amateur style that there will be a domination of the style you see with Dirrell, Dawson, Ward, Mayweather, etc for all types of boxers.

I think a good example of that is David Haye (who I should integrate into this article if I submit it), who is a brawler at heart. But he's a brawler who uses a form of the Boxing 3.0 I've identified. He uses as a base for gaining favorable position. So I don't think it's restricted to the boxer/puncher/brawler category - it may very well affect them all.

 

I think it's actually becoming quite typical. One of the posters above mentioned Amir Khan, and I agree that he also represents the Boxing 3.0 style. And I mentioned David Haye as what the possible "puncher" Boxer 3.0 will look like in the future. So I'm not sure that's limited to just Dawson, Dirrell and Ward. It may be all Olympian pros display more and more of this style.

You make an interesting point, however, about the internationalization of boxing and the impact this will have. I'm not sure if there's going to be a permanent variation of styles or if this is a symptom of the transitional phase we're in right now. But one thing I've noticed about globalization in general is that it creates more conformity than diversity. Amir Khan and David Haye, remember, aren't American yet both exhibit the same sort of style as Dirrell, Ward and Dawson.

It's hard to say what will end up happening, and it could be that you're correct and that we will see Boxing 3.0a, Boxing 3.0b, Boxing 3.0c. But given how small the world has become, it's more likely that there will be a convergence of all of these styles as one wins ultimate dominance over the others. With Haye being the first prominent Boxing 3.0 Heavyweight, how well he fares will go a long way to defining the long term prospects of this style at the heavyweight level, compared to the Eastern European style. Likewise with Amir Khan at the Jr. Welter level, and the two super-middleweights.

One person made a point about Floyd being "old school". I actually disagree with that. I think Floyd is one of the fathers of the 3.0 style. His in-and-out movement, use of angles, and use of athleticism to overwhelm his opponent is much more the product of 90s boxing than anything really "old". You didn't see stuff like that in the 60s, 70s, and very little of it in the 80s until the end of the 80s.

 

Am I allowed to post it twice? I'm pretty sure if I did, there would be more focus on what some would (incorrectly) perceive as my "dismissive" attitude towards the classic fighters. But my article was more about looking at the future trends than analyzing the past. I don't think that would be what the classic readers would come away with in reading this article.