Evander Holyfield vs Tommy Loughran

Loughran may have been more versatile and adaptable but these are hardly matters of technique. Tunney was indeed more textbook and generally less flawed technically, for reasons i've already pointed out.

 

What you seem to be saying is that Loughran is a better boxer than Tunney. I have no real issue with that although I see it as debatable. What i'm debating is your claim that he is a superior technician to Holyfield and Gene. I don't see it that way. From a purely technical perspective he is far and away the easiest to pick apart.

 

No, he has other glaring technical weaknesses. I've already pointed these out, but in a bit more detail.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk3vZBMkypI[/ame]

First of all he wares his hands at waist height. You can contrast this with Walker who spends most of the fights with his hands in what was then the correct parrying position, chest, allowing defensive duties up and downstairs with the gloves. This is a glaring weakness, specifically a technical one. It may or may not have cost Loughran rounds and fights, but that isn't the point. What I'm trying to get across is that he was not a technician in the traditional sense of the word, at all. What he did clearly worked but he is more akin to Jones or Wilde in many ways than Tunney or Holyfield who were both more technically sound.

At 0:20, 0:40, we can see him jab off the back foot. There's not front foot plant or pivot, he's basically setting up his retreat before he throws his punch. He also "moves in" on his backfoot, selling the move, baiting the shot, ready to retreat. That's fine and was a very much a part of his style, but it's offensively faulty in terms of technique because it prevents the fighter punching through his target. This matters less when a fighter is a powerhouse - Wlad discombobulated fighters with punches like this often enough - but for someone who is not, it compromises their hitting power pretty seriously. You've bemoaned Loughran's lack of power as his "only weakness." Bad technique plays its part here. Tunney and perhaps Greb found solutions. Loughran wasn't sound enough.

You can also see him immediatly drop his left hand after most of these jabs. That is begging to be countered, it is very very unsound. If you want to wear your hands at your waist for stylistic reasons that is one thing, if you want to drop your jab-hand after most of your punches (some of which were lazy anyway, though maybe with reason) you are asking to be hit. Walker obliges him at 1:15.

If you check out 1:50 you'll see Loughran falling again into his deep stance. He uses small moves to countorl opponents, and that's fine it was very affective as it goes, but as a consequence he falls out of balance. He makes these small moves in the main off his leading foot but that can lead him over-stretched. As an aside, this is very dangerous against a Tunney or Holyfield type of opponent, men with fluid rather than pressure offence (Though Holyfield actually has both much of the time) because combination-rushes become so effective.

It's also fair to point out that Loughran gathers himself absolutely beautiful and restores balance in time to control Walker in the following clinch, but there is not much doubt that Holyfield would manhandle him fiercely even if he was balanced. Loughran would either have to re-organise his footwork entirely for a very dangerous fight, abandon his small moves policy which dams up his offence horribly or get clattered in a fight like that. It's an example of how a small unsoundness in technique can have a huge impact on the fight - see Marquez-Pacquiao I for another fine example.

Perhaps his biggest problem against fluid HW's would be his stance. Because he boxes over his front foot in the traditinal manner, but from his backfoot in his own style he tends to come square over that front foot. He forms a V but one that sways away to the opponent's right. Combining this with a low left hand, technically questionable less-than-powerful punches and you are talking about Trouble.

This squareness is best illustrated by the Lomski KD.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1sRIPGbD1A&feature=related[/ame]

1:20.

Look at his positioning related to Lomski. Also, note that he is in a deeper stance when the action of the KD commences. This is the possible consequence of the stance, which is technically flawed. Against Walker we saw him re-organise and move off. Here he gets poleaxed.

These are technique-specific problems.

Now it should be noted that Loughran had the heart, guts and determination not to mention class and ability to get back up and box this out. He's a great fighter. No question. But he was not a great technician. Holyfield would beat him up and knock him out, partly for this reason.