'comes forward in straight lines'....?

i know what ya mean. it's a silly phrase at times. also some fighters break the rule about pulling straight back after punching. it works for some fighters and badly for others.

i dunno, i guess fans and experts need stuff to pick apart for the downtime between fights

 

Lateral movement?

 

Generally the term means more than just walking forward in straight lines. It refers to the actual head and body movement whilst doing so.

If you refer to Hatton as an example, this has always (pretty much) been the case throughout his career - he backed his ability to walk through shots fired by his opponent, believing them to be neither strong enough or accurate enough to stop him coming forward - and generally this has proven very successful, as a 44-1 career record suggests.

It didn't serve him well though in the most important fight of his career though, but then again, 30 odd other fighters tried to defeat Floyd Mayweather, all failed, many of them more miserably than Hatton did.

 

Im always coming in straight lines.

 

No, he isn't. Pavlik possesses sound fundamentals, but I think it's fair to say he doesn't do anything spectacular in there.

But what he does do, he does very well.

 

Pavlik is great at what he does, no doubt, and he can bang with the best of them. However, the thing with him is that he does fight in one certain way, which is right in front of you and hits you with 1,2 1,2, 1,1,2 1,2 1,1,1,2 1,2 combinations and this does not change though the rounds. This is what I think Lockett was trying to get at, however he just simply was no where near good enough to either come up with a plan or execute a plan.

 

A fighter who comes it in straight lines will only get punished for it by a fighter that utilises good lateral movement. All fighters do it but the fighters with better footwork will minimise it.

If you come in on a straight line and your opponent backs straight up then neither will have the advantage. If you come in on a straight line and instead of backing up your opponent side steps you, then you're more open to be countered.

It's a part of the commentators job to point these things out. But you are right it does seem to be something a lot of people seem to focus on when there are other things that could be mentioned. It is only one facet which won't always be the deciding factor in a fight.

 

I think its meaning is a bit different to its face value - i dont it specifically relates to fighters coming forward in straight lines, but for fighters who come forward without alot of head movement.. and are percieved as hittable.

 

Frank Warren uses it for most of his fighters after a losing or poor performance,along with 'not enough head movement';
Its intended to make him sound like he really knows his stuff when he has only basic,not trainer,knowledge.

 

Frank Warren uses it to describe any British fighter not under the Sports Network banner.

If you look on www.frankwarren.tv and read 'Frankly Speaking', look for June 2005 after Hatton beat Tszyu. Then look six months later.

Oh the contrast!

 

Pavlik is just not fast enough to pull off the lateral movement stuff. ( and he's a really big target anyway ) So he does best by going in straight lines ( shortest distance between two points ) Pavlik then uses his accuracy and workrate to gets past his opponents defenses and lateral movement. Boxers are always best served by playing to their strengths.

 

Have you ever seen him fight?

I guess you didn't see his variety of body shots, especially right hooks that slipped in fast as hell to Locket's body.

The 1-2 is of course going to be his bread and butter, but that's because he's using his height advantages to win the fight.