Boxing technique without professional boxing?

The amateur game is similar to the pro game, just fought at a faster pace over a shorter distance. The fundamentals are the same, but in a 3 round fight there is no time for stalling, letting the opponent wear himself out, or taking a round off, etc. The top amateurs are probably as refined as top pros, they are used to tough competition, they are not able to pick their opponents. When there is a big amateur tournament, there are a lot of good fighters at each weight, only one comes out of that tournament undefeated, all of the others lose. At that level of amateur competition you probably won't see "primitive edges."

The main difference between the amateurs and the pros is the pacing of the fight. Amateurs, when they turn pro, have to adjust to the longer and slower pace of the pro game. With that adjustment, they might learn more about tying up their opponent, how to take breaks, etc. Their boxing skills probably won't change much if at all.

 

I really like this question and I understand what you're asking I think. I am not really equipped to answer this question, I would put it up to what early pugilism looked like in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries respectively. It took place in Prizefighting and duals, defined with extremely loose rules, sometimes with weapons such as swords and clubs, other times pistols, and most often incorporated bare-knuckle fighting and wrestling. In what combination and order these were included was dependent on who was challenging who, where, when and why. Technique was either non-existent or culturally based. There were those who believed headbutting to the chest was considered a strategy. But when it came to bare knuckle fighting a fighters style was not streamlined, concepts of footwork, guards, punching form, were all drastically different for a myriad of reasons. Most often it was rules gave birth to the beginnings of techniques which were practical and useful.

I think some of this can be attributed to the fact that pugilism was very much just an aspect of prizefighting and dueling in Europe. Until the popularity of bare knuckle fighting came about in the 18th century I believe. This is to say the sole focus of the contests were not always bare-knuckle fighting, and so the early days of the sport, technique was not such a great focus rather than raw power and endurance. And there were many other aspects of the sport to consider. I think if it were not for the invention of professional boxing in the late 19th century, that we would not see modern technique emerging until after the mid 20th century. I think the invention of rules is what gave the most confidence to the developing sport, things like the criminalization of prizefighting and bare knuckle fighting were certain inhibitors of the sport. I don't know when modern technique would emerge but I think these are fascinating factors to consider in the sports history when the scene looked similar to what you were describing.

If you're interesting in when more modern technique emerged before Marquess of Queensbury rules, and most point to Daniel Mendoza as one of the (several) great-grandfathers of scientific boxing and one of the greatest bare knuckle fighters to have ever lived. I would suggest looking at this playlist by a youtuber, EnglishMartialArtist, who I really enjoy. He's pretty informative on the field of what boxing looked like in it's twilight years during the bare knuckle era.

This content is protected

 

I’m not certain, as I understand the question you’re asking in a sense how long would it take without the incentive of money for boxing to develop?

 

For many years, there was a vast difference between amateur and professional boxing and the amateurs copied the pros. As an example look at the Edwin L Haislet book; he was a very successful amateur, collegiate actually, coach but his book and the style it puts forth is the St Paul style that was a professional style. For most of my life it was understood that amateur boxing was a time to get good at basics and, when you turned pro, you learned how to fight.
Then it changed and it began with the idea that spending forever in the amateurs some how endowed you with skills that were not taught to pros. It has regress to the point that, today, the huge majority of top pros are just good amateurs.
Fundamentally, the two games are different in that amateur boxing is a points game and pro boxing is a hurting business. But does only having three rounds and having to be busier make you a better fighter? Uh...no it does not. Part of being a pro and part of knowing how to fight is: First being in shape to go 10 or more rounds. Second, it is the knowledge of how to build a fight and having the skill to do so. Anything that you create, if it is to have merit, must be built properly. You have to understand what you are trying to do and that is the sign of a true professional.
As a pro you may be able to pick your opponents, depending on who you know and how much influence they have, and that will work until you get to a place where you need to step up to further your career. As an amateur you don't pick your opponents but you do pick your tournaments. Depending on where they are from and how much they weigh, many guys win tournaments by walkover, due to lack of boxers, no shows and so on. I would suggest that, before you get impressed by a guy winning such and such a tournament, look at who was there and in what weight classes. Many good fighters will win everything at a local level and never compete at a national level due to financial issues. There are so many different influences that it is really hard to figure.

 

Well, as they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

Without the monetary incentives etc., (needs) development would’ve likely been hindered.

As it stands now, the AMs exist in tandem with the PROs - meaning, amateur boxing will somewhat mirror and benefit from the driven professional evolution of technique in the PROs.

Fighting is a natural instinct we’re all capable of executing at its most fundamental - but there’s so much more room for not so inherently natural skills and disciplines to be layered on top - and that wouldn’t happen without a driven frequency and due incentives to look for the next cutting edge techniques and refinements.

They did pay Max Baer when he fought, right? He may not be a good poster boy for this theory. LOL.

 

I misunderstood your question. The question was more about economics than the difference between the amateur and pro game. If there was no money involved (pro boxing) it's doubtful that there would be amateur boxing or many people practicing the sport. As they say, "you don't play boxing."

 

The amateurs are NOTHING like the pros. I've know tons of people who were very successful as amateur fighters and got CRUSHED once they turned pro.
Pros are a completely different style then amateur boxing.

 

Given duration, scoring criteria, and relative intolerance for breaches, I can see there would be some differences in application - but (open question, not rhetorical) couldn’t the AMs also represent a truncated version of the PROs to some extent even if not completely?

That belief could still hold even if a successful AM did get crushed in the PROs - the PROs being an obvious expansion on AM themes - aside from established skills/technique, the PROs asking far more, yet to be answered, personalised questions of a fighter in terms of heart, discipline, durability and commitment?

 

Sure. Amateurs use the same punches as such as pros.
Its just that in the pros emphasis is placed on alot of different areas then the amateurs. And the pros are alot more physical.
Some of the people I knew that turned pro they were multiple golden glove winners AND one or two were National Golden Glove winners.
Now I totally agree that in the pros it does require alot more discipline then the amateurs and some of the people that ended up not being successful pros lacked that discipline.
But alot of them were getting stopped by like 3- 5 club fighters that didn't even have any amateur experience but were just too rugged/physical for them to deal with.
In the pros it seems that they hit so much harder then in the amateurs. And in the amateurs they usually break them up quick on the inside and in the pros they let them work it out more.

 

This is mindblowing, thanks for the recommendation. Not only is he highly knowledgeable in an era of boxing that is mostly lost to the ages, he can also fight like them as well. Insane.

This content is protected

 

Yeah dude, he's an awesome guy and his videos are so well researched and I especially love his recommendation of books for all this knowledge as well. He's a practicing historian and I adore his channel! I'm happy you found it interesting!

 

Thanks Cobra, excellent and informative post.

That’d be tough to see a Golden Gloves Champ crash and burn like that in the PROs.

I guess a given trainer’s handling and training of an AM to PRO fighter would be crucial for due transition - some features perhaps to be “unlearned” while expanding on others.

Kostya Tszyu of course had an extensive and highly successful AM career before turning PRO.

He obviously transitioned well but one thing I did notice and it annoyed me a bit - when tied up or when it got a little rough on the inside - KT often looked to the ref. as if appealing to him to help, warn and/or break them - I used to think “come on” KT, just punch your way out and/or return the rough stuff in kind.

Perhaps an overhang from the AM days, I dunno - KT even acted aghast and without answer when a desperate, 8 tenths beaten Chavez started getting a bit rough - strange to see an otherwise dominant KT stand there and let himself get whacked a few times by an opponent that was more or less already done - highly unnecessary IMO.

 

Your welcome.

Bernard Taylor was almost almost impossible to beat in the amateurs. He even made the Olympics-1980 team- but we boycotted those Olympics.
As a pro he was pretty successful but everytime he stepped up to championship level he lost with the exception of his bout vs Eusebio. And he would get stopped.
He just for whatever reason didn't have the physical ability in the pros.
Had a friend that won 3 golden gloves in a row so they thought he should turn pro. He was 21.
So he turns pro and of course he's on an under card on a local promotion. Think he sold 200 tickets.
He fights this fighter that's 1 win and 3 losses.
And he gets DESTROYED. Dropped like 3 times and stopped in the 2nd round.
Everybody is shocked. BUT........... What everybody didn't know is that while he had won the Golden Gloves three years in a row when he went to the Nationals he got CRUSHED.
So he was a good amateur LOCALLY but not Nationally.