Fighters where their fundamentals help them through aging...

From what I've seen(in most boxing gyms),the trainers/coach usually taught you to box while greatly emphasized on the importance of fundamentals in boxing.

I read a few months ago that Monte D Cox wrote that Joe Louis was the most fundamentally "correct" heavyweight boxer.

I also remember reading one poster (from the boxing scene) mentioned that for a fundamentally correct boxer,Joe Louis sure aged much faster(and more apparent) in the ring when he fought after WWII.

Compared to Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott,who despite their advanced age (around 37-42),still managed to give the much younger Rocky Marciano an exciting match(both even managed to knock The Rock down).With Archie Moore managed to win the light-heavyweight title in 1959.

The question here is what are your thoughts about a boxing fundamentals?Does good boxing fundamentals helps a boxer to go on when their physical marvel left them?

Or a good boxing fundamentals is merely a "correct" way to box and have no influence on a boxers from continuing their boxing career into their advanced age?

 

Is this just an excuse to holla Bernard Hopkins name? Wait a sec, Bernard, is that you??

 

hardwork, dedication..... = ............

 

When I'm making this thread.I'm thinking fighters like Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott.No modern fighter involve here because there are other external cause for their longeveity,(i.e modern medicines,drugs...)

Especially people like Bernard Hopkins,who refused to take the test when challenged by Jean Pascal.

 

Definitely certain styles work better for a fighter with slowed reflexes and footwork. Larry Holmes would be a perfect example. He could box well against young solid fighters well into his mid 40's. He didnt take the type of punishment that Foreman did in his older age did.

Both Hopkins and Holyfield adapted more of an ugly grappling style in my opinion.

 

Barrera did a damned good job re-tooling his style for the Hamed fight and after that as well.

 

Mike Mccallum. In fact that's the biggest proof of how skilled he was IMO. Athletically speaking he was a different fighter by the time he move to MW IMO. The only thing that kept him going as he did was because of his technique.

 

Yeah, McCallum is as good example as any. Just look at his fight against RJJ when old and shot. He got widely outpointed, but certainly didn't cop a beating and it was clear Roy treated him with respect.

Boxing fundamentals allows you attack and defend while minimizing exertion and vulnerability as well as maximizing power and accuracy. Therefore they of course serve you well when you can't rely on great physical ability.

 

Juan Manuel Marquez certainly deserves mentioning.

 

Jones treated old McCallum with respect and that's why Bodysnatcher didn't
receive a beating.

 

Rabbit punching, stalling and faking low blows are fundamentals?

 

The success of old second rate 175 hopkins single handedly trolled the fighting ability of an entire generation of light-heavies\super-middles.

 

But then again why does Joe Louis,whom which Monte D Cox refers to as the most fundamentally "correct" boxer,declined greatly in his fights after WWII when his speed left him.Why didn't his fundamentals help him?

 

Ali
Barrera
Foreman (from the 90's)
De la Hoya..( even though he was losing most of his fights there towards the end)
Jersey Joe

 

Duran