Are we seeing the rise of Boxing 3.0?

demigawd · Nov 22, 2009

keure said: ↑

i agree strongly with ward and dawson but i dont think dirrels style isnt nearly as technical as either of them, or nearly as good for that matter, and i have watched probably 5 of his fights and he hasnt impressed me with anything, i havent watshed khan so i cant comment, and haye after watching the valuev fight i would say a heavyweight haye is unimpressive and it would be pretty bleak if he was your representative of a puncher from your new class. In a sense are you saying that boxing 3.0 is more of a safety first generation, technically proficient but not fan pleasing. Honestly i hope this isnt the new trend in bpxing because if this is the case the sport will surely die because the mainstream public will not get excited or interested in this style of fighting
Click to expand...

True. Like with Boxing 2.0, some people are just going to be better at it than others. I think while Ward is clearly better at it than Dirrell, it doesn't take away from the point that the styles are very similar. I think "Safety First" is the simplest way to put it, and "tag boxing" is another way. Dirrell definitely has that signature style of "Tag" boxing that we saw with Ward against Kessler, and Dawson against Johnson, and Khan against Kotelnik, and Mayweather against Marquez. He's obviously not as good at it, but it's not a qualitative assessment, it's a stylistic assessment. Know what I mean?

I think more evidence that we're in this transitional phase is the fact that the last transitional phase was very similar in terms of public reaction. People often talk about the 50s as the "Dark Age" of boxing when it was at its lowest point. Not a simple coincidence that it's exactly when that transitional phase I identified happened to be. I think we may be seeing not just a shakeout in the boxers' style, but perhaps a shakeout in the fans' styles as well, where either we develop an appreciation for this new form of boxing, or we stop watching boxing and we're replaced by a new generation of fans who grew up appreciating this style and see our "engagement" preference as being as backward as many of us see boxing from the 20s and 30s.

It will be interesting.

bald_head_slick · Nov 22, 2009

demigawd said: ↑

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!
Click to expand...

I think you are correct in your assessment, however I will differ slightly in my opinion of how we get to these points. Almost everything in America goes in a cycle with five stages:

1 - Discovery - Let's define this!
2 - Refinement - Get better with everyone adding to the knowledge base
3 - Renaissance - Now we have enough concrete knowledge to pit schools of thought against each other. What works?
4 - Normalcy - We now know what works. We now know who can do it. What is in it for me (the boxer)?
5 - Stabilization/Decline - Evolution complete. Since the sport is a known quantity, people who can't compete look for other activities drawing societies attention elsewhere

This evolution, IMHO, is uniquely American. Due to America's lack of culture and lack of ties to the past, it allows Americans to constantly look at a task objectively without attachment and only keep the good. Also evaluating what is "best for me". In America, this evolution for Boxing is tempered by the TRAGIC story of Muhammed Ali.

I guess I can correlate your 3.0 down to moving between steps 4-5 for me. This is where the guys who "would" begin to be regularly bested by the guys that "could". All the while the guys who "could" are saying what is my physical best interest? (Not getting my head bashed in.)

Boxing has been analysed and I think at this point we see, the athletic guy wins. Now when I say "athletic" I am talking about that guy as a kid you could toss a ball, racquet, etc... tell him the rules and he could whip everyone in an afternoon or a week tops. Problem is that these guys are few and far between and once seen men know they don't match up so move on.

Now, the athlete is just trying to beat everyone's ass AND bring his ass out of the ring in one piece. You call it Boxing 3.0, some call it "running", some call it smart boxing. In the school of American thought it is just what is good business.

Hence the popularity of MMA. Guys are chasing something that is an unknown quantity (stage 2). Oh I am a ground fighter. Oh I am a striker. Oh I am a blah, blah... Same for boxing styles make fights. The difference is that Boxing is evolved enough to know, the athlete whips everyone. The athlete who does so with the least amount of risks reigns the longest. You go to the boxing gym and you see within your first 6 months sparring if you "got it". You watch RJJ, or FMJ do their thing you KNOW you can't hang.

So, yes this is the future of boxing, but the truth is that these guys are blips along the timeline. So many factors converging at once. The difference is that now the dangers of boxing are known and it is readily incorporated into the athlete's training and mentality.

Critic · Nov 22, 2009

is there a crack for this 3.0 patch?

o_money · Nov 22, 2009

Critic said: ↑

is there a crack for this 3.0 patch?
Click to expand...

Yup buts its knda illegal if you get caught using it:

This content is protected
:deal

Reilence · Nov 22, 2009

Nice post.

eliqueiros · Nov 22, 2009

demigawd said: ↑

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!
Click to expand...

Boxing 3.0, I'd like to introduce you to Boxing 4.0

This content is protected

David B · Nov 22, 2009

Post of the year

abujafar · Nov 22, 2009

Critic said: ↑

is there a crack for this 3.0 patch?
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl

Dude are are you in the It field or something:good

dangerousity · Nov 22, 2009

o_money said: ↑

Yup buts its knda illegal if you get caught using it:

This content is protected
:deal
Click to expand...

good one.

Great thread, interesting read. I disagree though, there will always be sluggers and dancers. When you had Ali who liked to boxed from the outside, or even Willie Pep, you had Henry Armstrong & Joe Frazier.

I hope for the sake of boxing that everyone doesnt go into 1 style, perceiving it as the best style...it would get very boring.

slantone · Nov 22, 2009

good read..but i think that- with any action - there is a reaction- and the reaction is that powerful punching guys are at a premium now. abraham, pacquiao. if you can knock out a guy in your weight class with one punch- ur pretty much a lethal weapon- as man fighters cant nowadays. i agree with the comments about this new generations style- but i disagree with it being a very distinct and different style ot the past- or it being so unique that it is its own generation from what u call generation 2.0. **** name too..

BITCH ASS · Nov 22, 2009

Yes it's evolved into Floyd would have ducked Tommy Hearns.

Sugar Ray actually had to fight guys like Tommy Hearns. Floyd's defense wouldn't work against that guy because he doesn't take enough risks.

And to be honest, I think for the most part boxing has regressed. Sure, you have Mayweather, Toney, Hopkins, etc...

But you must have forgot or not be aware of guys like Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Henry Armstong, and dozens of others from the past that competed generations ago...

If you compare the average fighter from that time frame today, you would see WHY the best guys like Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep, etc, have losses, and it simeltaneously give you insight into how great they really ARE...

It's actually the opposite of what you're saying, for the most part boxing has regressed...

You got guys like Dawson who is actually one dimensional in he has no idea how to fight going foward, when a guy like Hopkins who is multidimensional dominates Tarver at 43 in an easy fight while Dawson made it 12 rounds of getting by on athleticsm alone.

Dirrell is another example of a great athlete, but he fights scared; it's like he doesn't realize it's a fight.

Outta the guys you mentioned, the new guys, only Ward shares the characteristics of an old school fighter who is multi dimensional and may be able to rise above the other two you mentioned and actually be considered a great fighter.

But his technique is no different than the technique that was prominent in the best fighters generations ago when boxing was more mainstream and everyone wanted to be champ...

BITCH ASS · Nov 22, 2009

bald_head_slick said: ↑

I think you are correct in your assessment, however I will differ slightly in my opinion of how we get to these points. Almost everything in America goes in a cycle with five stages:

1 - Discovery - Let's define this!
2 - Refinement - Get better with everyone adding to the knowledge base
3 - Renaissance - Now we have enough concrete knowledge to pit schools of thought against each other. What works?
4 - Normalcy - We now know what works. We now know who can do it. What is in it for me (the boxer)?
5 - Stabilization/Decline - Evolution complete. Since the sport is a known quantity, people who can't compete look for other activities drawing societies attention elsewhere

This evolution, IMHO, is uniquely American. Due to America's lack of culture and lack of ties to the past, it allows Americans to constantly look at a task objectively without attachment and only keep the good. Also evaluating what is "best for me". In America, this evolution for Boxing is tempered by the TRAGIC story of Muhammed Ali.

I guess I can correlate your 3.0 down to moving between steps 4-5 for me. This is where the guys who "would" begin to be regularly bested by the guys that "could". All the while the guys who "could" are saying what is my physical best interest? (Not getting my head bashed in.)

Boxing has been analysed and I think at this point we see, the athletic guy wins. Now when I say "athletic" I am talking about that guy as a kid you could toss a ball, racquet, etc... tell him the rules and he could whip everyone in an afternoon or a week tops. Problem is that these guys are few and far between and once seen men know they don't match up so move on.

Now, the athlete is just trying to beat everyone's ass AND bring his ass out of the ring in one piece. You call it Boxing 3.0, some call it "running", some call it smart boxing. In the school of American thought it is just what is good business.

Hence the popularity of MMA. Guys are chasing something that is an unknown quantity (stage 2). Oh I am a ground fighter. Oh I am a striker. Oh I am a blah, blah... Same for boxing styles make fights. The difference is that Boxing is evolved enough to know, the athlete whips everyone. The athlete who does so with the least amount of risks reigns the longest. You go to the boxing gym and you see within your first 6 months sparring if you "got it". You watch RJJ, or FMJ do their thing you KNOW you can't hang.

So, yes this is the future of boxing, but the truth is that these guys are blips along the timeline. So many factors converging at once. The difference is that now the dangers of boxing are known and it is readily incorporated into the athlete's training and mentality.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this.

This is a loser's attitude. I've seen guys in the gym that are outstanding athletes, but their lack of desire makes them less than great fighters.

And you have to realize that there will always be someone that can do something better than you, and truly great fighters learn to adjust...

If you can't outbox a guy, you outfight him, and this is something that has happened time and time again.

What you were basically saying is that Frazier should have just gave up before he got in the ring with Ali or Marciano should have never gone anywhere near Jersey Joe Walcott, or Duran should have stayed in Panama before fighting Leonard.

There are ways to be aggressive and defensive at the same time...

But if you quit before you start...you got a loser's attitude.

BITCH ASS · Nov 22, 2009

And on top of everything you said, people are more soft today...

We're way more pampered and bein hard is a truly overlooked aspect in today's game, but guys like Hopkins who isn't the best athlete in the world prove time and time again why an old school approach, in the sense that you're fightin for food or at least trickin yourself into believin that you are, is the way to win championships.

madkillaz692000 · Nov 22, 2009

wow...one of the best thread so far.. intellectual conversations.

goldnarms · Nov 22, 2009

REAPER said: ↑

Yes it's evolved into Floyd would have ducked Tommy Hearns.

Sugar Ray actually had to fight guys like Tommy Hearns. Floyd's defense wouldn't work against that guy because he doesn't take enough risks.

And to be honest, I think for the most part boxing has regressed. Sure, you have Mayweather, Toney, Hopkins, etc...

But you must have forgot or not be aware of guys like Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Henry Armstong, and dozens of others from the past that competed generations ago...

If you compare the average fighter from that time frame today, you would see WHY the best guys like Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep, etc, have losses, and it simeltaneously give you insight into how great they really ARE...

It's actually the opposite of what you're saying, for the most part boxing has regressed...

You got guys like Dawson who is actually one dimensional in he has no idea how to fight going foward, when a guy like Hopkins who is multidimensional dominates Tarver at 43 in an easy fight while Dawson made it 12 rounds of getting by on athleticsm alone.

Dirrell is another example of a great athlete, but he fights scared; it's like he doesn't realize it's a fight.

Outta the guys you mentioned, the new guys, only Ward shares the characteristics of an old school fighter who is multi dimensional and may be able to rise above the other two you mentioned and actually be considered a great fighter.

But his technique is no different than the technique that was prominent in the best fighters generations ago when boxing was more mainstream and everyone wanted to be champ...
Click to expand...

Although what you say is somewhat reasonable, I don't believe its really addressing the essence of what the thread starter is saying.

Also, saying things like "Dawson is one dimensional because he only comes forward" is terribly overly simplistic.

Log in or Sign up

Are we seeing the rise of Boxing 3.0?

demigawd Boxing Addict Full Member

bald_head_slick Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Critic Limited Edition Full Member

o_money Boxing Junkie banned

Reilence Grepolis Mania Full Member

eliqueiros Boxing Junkie Full Member

David B Nazi Russia lies. This is the only truth. Full Member

abujafar Active Member Full Member

dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

slantone Ring General Full Member

BITCH ASS "Too Fast" Full Member

BITCH ASS "Too Fast" Full Member

BITCH ASS "Too Fast" Full Member

madkillaz692000 Fuerte y Abundante Full Member

goldnarms Active Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Are we seeing the rise of Boxing 3.0?

demigawd Boxing Addict Full Member

bald_head_slick Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Critic Limited Edition Full Member

o_money Boxing Junkie banned

Reilence Grepolis Mania Full Member

eliqueiros Boxing Junkie Full Member

David B Nazi Russia lies. This is the only truth. Full Member

abujafar Active Member Full Member

dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

slantone Ring General Full Member

BITCH ASS "Too Fast" Full Member

BITCH ASS "Too Fast" Full Member

BITCH ASS "Too Fast" Full Member

madkillaz692000 Fuerte y Abundante Full Member

goldnarms Active Member Full Member