Does 'Textbook boxing' limit creativity and can only take a fighter so far?

That is a good saying, however, the textbook is basically a guideline in how to deal with things in boxing. So in theory sticking to it strictly, should give you 100% efficiency and 0% failure, however, as you say men are fallible and they cannot stick to it 100% of the time, a post further down mentions that you need all good attributes to make the most of the textbook, so perhaps it is written for ideal situations, in a sort of theory over practise way.

That is completely true. They would be entirely different.

But do you not think if you tightened up Marciano's hand positioning and developed a more refined jab it would not have improved him?

Or if you tightened up Ali's hand positioning?

To be entirely honest though, these guys knew the basics and used them quite well. Ali, for example, would lift his right hand up high when he jabbed and the way he held his form whilst jabbing was near textbook IMO.

Could it not be argued that with all them attributes, whatever style a fighter chose he would be successful?

Also could it not be argued that most unique styles are created by fighters to maximise there strengths, and not to minimize there weaknesses as you seem to think?

I agree with this mostly.

I think a fairly low left hand can be acceptable if the fighter is using it as a lure/feint or wanting to change the angle of his jab.. Standing with it just low and without turning in the shoulder is just dumb.

Good post, I will definitely need to take a look at Schmeling.

Your getting very close to the point I want to make.

Thing is with these guys, they still had a very sound understanding of the textbook.

Good analogy.

:good

They do all have that artistry but they have the fundamentals really down that allows them to that IMO.

Exactly the same as me there.

Will check it out.

Good post, but I think a fighter can still follow the text book and keep creative freedom.

 

Right as soon as I made this thread I just thought of Harold Johnson, and specifically his bout with Ezzard Charles. Even Charles is very sound fundamentally but I focussed on Johnson.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGEaBuH5ywY&feature=related[/ame]

To me, Johnson is pretty much straight out of the textbook but still applies his own creativity whilst staying in the parameters of the textbook, as most greats do. He understands the guidelines set out and adapts them and makes them his own, although he does not do it in as such a drastic way as others.

During the fight Johnson shows a lot of creativity and adaptation in his game, so I will go through bits of it.

In the first round Johnson begins throwing a long left jab looking for Charles to react to it, when he does he quickly changes that jab into a left hook counter, countering, and quelling, whatever Charles did in reaction to that jab.

In the second Johnson begins to dispense of the left jab and throws feints looking to catch Charles out then steps forward with counter left hooks and right hands as Charles looks to do something, similar to the hooking off the jab but just taken it the step further. Charles begins to catch onto this and begins to feint himself and take Johnson out of his rhythm and he does so successfully, so Johnson just gets back behind his jab and looks to figure out a new game plan, and keeps this going as he sees it is working, he just keeps Charles busy behind his own left jab, this is part of a stylistic weakness he has though, as Johnson is often too reliant on his left hand.

In the fifth Johnson does some superb creative moves with his left jab and they have to be seen. At one point he slides backwards and to his right and as Charles advances he quickly sidesteps left and opens up Charles for the jab, he then pops the left jab and slides away. This stopped Johnson getting predictable with his left jab as he used feints and angle work like this to change up his jab and keep Charles thinking.

In the sixth Johnson again dispenses of the jab, turning it into a feint to land the hard left hook and right hand counters. Charles really does a smart move, tactically in the next round, which I have to say, with Johnson set to counter Charles begins to feint, and Johnson is almost a sitting duck as he is set to counter but there is nothing too counter because of the feints, this then allows Charles to dart in with a fast shot then get out before Johnson can do anything.

In the ninth Johnson again changes it up by moving to his left as he jabs. However, he plays some really coy tricks as every so often he moves his foot to the left signalling he is away to jab and move to his left but then he brings his left foot back inside Charles and throws the left hook. Catching out Charles as he is anticipating the left jab, this is forcing Johnson's opponent to change angle for the benefit of Johnson, now that is textbook genius.



Basically to sum up my thoughts. I think the textbook is important to every great fighter, it is the basis for everything they do, even the unorthodox one's like Roy Jones Jr, however, it is the way that they adapt, or interpret the textbook which makes them wholly efficient, they learn the words (the textbook skills) but it is the way the individual learns the grammar (applies the skills) that matter.

 

Thanks.

That is when low hands are a problem when they actually are a flaw, they can be made for the positive in some situations.

Exactly, and most great fighters have these fundamentals that they can fall back on.

I would say Ray Leonard is fairly textbook.

 

I think as long as the shoulder is tucked in, a low left aint a major problem.