Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Mar 6, 2019.
You claim saying "step jab" is redundant because you always step when you jab. I point out that there are times when you jab without taking a step. It's simple logic. Don't try and claim I don't understand what you are saying.
ok, lets just agree to disagree, i look forward to your superior grasp of advanced boxing technique and training, becoming a common part of the forum threads. you know, the stuff that only people who are more than internet boxers would know.
I look forward to you trying to trick people into thinking the textbook way of doing something is the only way to do it correctly.
put it this way who did he fight? A 4 times champion. I mean Hearns and Duran and Arguello were at the end of their prime careers and had legendary careers by the time they were at that level. Broner is a 4 time champ.. it is ridiculous It should not be that easy.
Hearns had a move I never saw in other fighters. When he boxed he would stick his jab out as he was boxing, and after he bounced off the ropes he would stick his jab out and hit the other guy. Leonard was hit with the punch that way.. It was unique. I have not seen many guys do that.
trick? seriously? thats what youre mind computed from the posts ive made on the subject? this is a waste of time. enjoy the fight.
I was actually watching some Hearns fights while typing that post. When I asked myself what fighter I could watch that would demonstrate my point he was the first one that came to mind.
He had that 78 1/2 inch reach which was probably the reach of a guy 6 foot 3 or 4. So his reach was even more than his height. And when he bounced off the ropes he extended his arm and it would land. It was an odd punch. Hearns would box moving back all the time and jab. Most guys move forward when jabbing. If they are backing up they might do a pawing jab and step in with a lead right the way Floyd might. Jones Jr. had a great move of pawing, and then landing those leaping left hooks which got Toney.
thing is Spence is not that tall.. So he does not fight like a tall fighter. He is pretty much a jabbing guy who breaks guys down to the body and busts them up. But he is open to lead rights. Garcia has studied it. If he watched the fights he sees how jabbing with Spence will not work. use the lead right and even work it over Spence lazy jab which he sticks out a little too long. I don't know if Mikey can win, but he has to fight active to keep Spence out of his rhythm and not back up to the ropes, where Spence likes to work the body. He has to back up Spence to win or at least keep the fight active. He cannot sit back and take the jabs and back up. The lead rights are the keys for Mikey to set up the other punches and outset Spence rhythm and the body punches are the keys for Spence to get Mikey tired and on the ropes where he will try and work him over. I don't know who is going to win. I have to see who is faster. What I see right now is the fight going to about round 8 with Mikey maybe being stopped. But I don't see the fight ending early. I don't know if Spence is experienced enough to end it early. He doesn't even have 100 pro rounds added up. The problem I have with Mikey, although he is more experienced his resume does not have great fighters on it. Not that Spence is great, but he has potential and he might be faster and better than most guys Mikey fought. Which is odd to say about a guy who won 4 titles. Like I said boxing is at a real low now. No one with Mikey's resume should have 4 titles. Broner should not have 4 either. Something has to be done to make boxings accomplishments, which used to be tough now easier.
I am aware that Roy Jones like many other fighters failed to adjust his style as he got old. It happens. But what Fouts is doing is taking an ATG who was virtually untouched for 14 years. Who shut out Toney, outpointed Hopkins with one hand, and was the only Person to KO Sugar Boy Melinga for 10 years. And he's desperately trying to make him look bad, for seemingly no real reason at all. All first rounds, all rounds he won all in fights he would ultimately win quite handily. The question becomes, if Roy was winning, maybe Roy was just better at boxing than the other boxers. He built his style to go against the grain and refined that style of course underpinned by freak athleticism.
Here is my question. Would a more traditionally orthodox Roy Jones have done better. All the speed, all the power, just fought like Paulie Maglinaggi. Do you think he goes unbeaten for 14 years? I don't. Maybe he lasts a bit longer at the end, but that more traditional, predictable fighting style would have gotten him caught. And though Jones didn't have a glass chin, he probably didn't have a great one. His style hid that far better than a more usual one. It's like being mad at Gengis Khan for having horses. And it's just petty and negitave by Fouts.
This happens to me a lot too. Don't even bother trying to further explain this to people on the internet. When they try to argue just concede. You can't win since they argue without a point of experience or understanding yet they want to talk about it anyway. It's weird.
Well bandeedo refuses to believe that stepping in with every jab is a flaw.
And as multiple posters have pointed out, it is a flaw.
And at this point everyone is just going in circles.
doubling down on green again?
You are wrong and I am right