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

Just to add to the discussion, what are we defining as 'Textbook'. A guy like charley burley had a wonderful classic stance not really a textbook one.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4[/ame]


That classic stance i believe is much more succesful than a textbook one. Joe Louis had a more textbook stance.

 

It can stunt creativity. The most creative fighters generally had the most imagination and ability to improvise at a whim. I don't know where the line exactly lies, though.

 

Great topic needs bump. Textbook is mainly ideal for fighters who are starting up and learning the basic fundamentals. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it stunts creativity but it leaves more room for improvisation. At the end of the day it really does depend on the fighters and what style suits them.
Guys like Louis, Arguello, Finito, JMM, Orlando Canizales, Mike McCallum, Donald Curry are fighters that I would consider “textbook” but also “creative” as well in terms of offense.

 

I think that guys like Golovkin and Canelo at MW right now are "textbook" and they are very successful. There's a definite advantage to a strong stance and a big punch based off the jab. Guys like this can neutralize the whizzbang creative types with footwork and timing and impose their game on them. See: Golovkin vs Proksa., Canelo vs Saunders.

 

Yep.

I'd call most of the top 10 p4p very text book fighters. Also Inoue, Crawford, Usyk, Loma, Spence for example. Guys like Loma has expanded on it, but still adheres to its principles.

 

GREAT observations, especially about Tyson!

"Now, there's also a hybrid example of the artist and scientist. Mike Tyson (early on) had incredible amounts of the science tweaked to an excellent degree, but he also had a very dark brooding artistry coupled with that. Once he stopped respecting his scientific options in the ring, he became a relatively bad artist."

 

Greb is a bad example since there is no fight footage so we can see how he boxed. We only have exaggerated tales from old newspapers.
On a side note, I really like Kid Gavillan.

 

Ali's fundamentals were awful, what are you talking about ?!
He did not hold his hands properly, he did not know how to par or counter a jab, he was vulnerable to the left hook throughout his career, especially when he tried to throw an uppercut, which btw, wasn't a proper one, he leaned back from punches etc.
Ali had success due to his incredible speed and reflexes. Eddie Futch once noted that when Ali loses his speed, any journeyman will be able to beat him.

 

Everyone loves Gavilan.

 

A man can be uncreative with for an example punch selection and win he can not afford to be uncreative with his timing.
That is the essence of boxing, the tools are easy to learn it is application that matters there are no secrets not even correct form matters if you can apply it. It is simply out-smarting the other guy at the end of the day.

 

That turned out to be BS, though. He wasn't particularly fast after '75, but didn't lose to journeymen for that sake.

Even a slow and ancient Ali gave Berbick a good fight in '81.

Ali did things wrong from a textbook standpoint, but this rehashing that he was all speed and reflexes and no technique is obviously not correct if you actually watch him. Ali had great form when punching and was a great combination puncher for one thing. That's part of the textbook as well, of course.

And if you don't think Ali could counter a jab, you know nothing about him. He probably had the best pull counter of any HW.

 

No.

Text book boxing is an excellent foundation.

 

I love this discussion. So many layers we can unpeel.

My first thought to interject is that often the antidote to unorthodoxy is orthodoxy.

Case in point, Marco Antonio Barrera was savagely correct in his approach to Naseem Hamed … and he made the Clown Prince look like a fool.

But he also had to be damned good to pull it off. You take an average athlete with average speed and average power and average stamina and average determination … and you’ll end up with an average fighter. If he eschews the textbook he might become a more difficult puzzle to solve for some but an easy one for others, depending on styles and in what ways he applies his creativity.

I’d rate Alexis Arguello as almost the epitome of a classicist in style. The unorthodox Aaron Pryor dismantled him, eventually, but that’s a bigger man with a far greater degree of athleticism. Had Arguello, from the start, fought like Pryor — probably wouldn’t have worked for him.

But Chacon is unorthodox and Arguello handled him. Same for Bazooka Limon and Alfredo Escalera, each unorthodox in his own way … but Vilomar Fernandez gave AA fits.

Floyd Patterson was unorthodox … but a complete adherent to the Book of D’Amato. He leaped in with hooks, peek-a-boo’d and all that. But he was unnaturally fast of hand. Kevin Rooney drank from the same fountain but had no particular gifts and was painfully average.

 

I’ll add another post rather than add to the above because it hit me right as I hit ‘post reply’ — let’s look at a tale of two brothers.

Gabe Ruelas seemed, to me, a natural fighter. He was smooth and everything seemed to just flow for him. It looked like everything just probably came easy to him from his first day in the gym.

His brother Rafael, on the other hand, looked like a robotic ‘taught’ fighter. I bet nothing came easy to him, but he adhered to his teaching and applied his lessons, albeit in a less fluid fashion.

Same gene pool, same teachers, but I’d say Gabe was the more creative and less orthodox of the two (not that he was way out of the box, but GR was much more inclined to listen to his muse, while RR would fall back on the teachings that had been drilled into him IMO).

In the end, they got to about the same place. Both were very, very good but not great. Rafael MAYBE accomplished a tad more, but when they stepped too far up in class each fell short of rising to that next level. But maybe that’s because RR had the gift of height and reach over his brother. Or maybe it’s because he leaned into orthodoxy while Gabe veered from it (although not radically far afield).

Just an observation.