I've been watching fights of Tony Canzoneri as he was a good trapper fighter,but I've been noticing something: old schools tend to leave their hands low. Does that makes their fundamentals weaker,or does it means lesser skills,or even both against modern fighters? Just a question.
While i am personally a fan of keeping hands high, there are advantages of a low guard: 1. Easier to feint (i.e. pretend to throw punches). 2. Easier to throw up jabs. These jabs come from below the fighters eye line and as such, are hard to defend against. 3. In a 15 round fight like old timers, it requires less energy to hold the arms low as opposed to high. Slightly easier to hold hands high in 12 round fights like modern fighters. 4. Low hands make dodging punches using head movement a bit easier, which can then allow counter punching opportunities. So having a slightly lower guard does not necessarily mean worse fundamentals. However, low hands means your reflexes and footwork needs to be perfect. If your footspeed declines or reflexes decline, then low hands can mean weak defense. But if those two things are working well, having a low guard is not indicative of lesser skill or worse fundamentals.
In that era, blocking punches was considered a last resort and many training manuals of the time considered it a real novice tactic. The emphasis was on drawing leads and countering them. Any dummy with big gloves can cover up. It takes a ton of skill to make an opponent throw the punch you want him to throw when you want him to throw it.
IMO, where a fighter holds his hands is not a "fundamental" issue, it's a "style" issue. If the fighter keeps his elbows away from his body like wings, that is a fundamental problem, but keeping hands high or low is more of a "what works for him" thing. It's preferable for a fighter to slip or roll punches rather than blocking them because slipping and rolling leave both hands available to counter.
That's a very basic thing, isn't it? If I am using my hands to block your hands, what am I going to hit you with? You and I know that you can use your right hand to catch and block just about everything and that you use your left hand to counter, which makes sense because it is close to the target. But then you have to take the time and effort to learn how to use your left hand.
Adding to the “hands up” discussion I’ve read a wise British trainer say that you can’t punch with your hands above your shoulders, I hope I’m remembering that right.
Unless the fighter has extremely long forearms, getting his hands higher than his shoulders requires lifting the elbows away from the body. If the elbows are away from the body, that almost guarantees that the fighter will be an "arm puncher." Good point by that trainer. I have seen a few fighters with long forearms and a short upper body who can keep their elbows in, and their hands are naturally shoulder height or higher. Those types can punch using their whole body. Having that combination of long arms, short upper body is rare. I think I saw a picture of Hagler posing in his stance with his elbows against his body and his hands were higher than his shoulders? I've seen a few like that, it happens, but it's not common.
The tragedy is that many fighters being criticised with not having fundamentals is often more an indication of the lazy rinse and repeat rhetoric of the assessor or lack of boxing understanding/real exposure to appreciate what is on display. Ali, RJJ, SRR, SRL, Naz, Toney, Zapata, Pep, Cazoneri, PBF, Sweet Pete, Duran and many others display excellent fundamentals and/or understanding of body mechanics, even whilst doing unorthodox moves or being in unorthodox positions. These are often stylistic 'issues' rather than pure lack of fundamentals. Boxing is a martial art and ultimately, with styles, different physiques and physical attributes and different mentalities, two boxers can throw exactly the same jab in wholly different ways. One keeps his right high, ready to parry or frame and block return fire; the other keeps hands low, throws a flicking up jab and moves their head simultaneously off-centre whilst blading their body and pivotting so their chin is protected. Both fighters are extremely fundamentally sound IMO, but one is orthodox and the other is trying to gain a new angle, score and set something up and the head movement probably draws the movement that they have pivotted to counter or avoid In anticipation. The first fighter's style can be taught to nearly anybody to a good degree of proficiency. The second fighter is less teachable as there's a level of athleticism, reflex and timing required to do it consistently and remain defensively sound. Just cos it's not as easily replicable doesn't mean that it's not equally grounded in solid fundamentals and you'll often find all other things being equal between the fighters, the one able to do what the other one can't do should be the victor. Horses for courses - I certainly hope that we get to a point where we stop confusing stylistic tendencies for fundamentals and recognise that orthodoxy is excellent and efficient, but unorthodox with a solid foundation is pretty special at its highest level.
Great post. One more thing that i will add is that while a low guard can be very effective, even guys who usually kept their hands low can sometimes benefit from keeping their hands high. Ali used a high guard vs Foreman. Rarely in this fight did Ali drop his hands. Why? I suspect it wasn't just the fact that he was 32 and not 25. At 32, he still had good reflexes. It was because Foreman's swings were so powerful and wild and somewhat unpredictable that relying on foot movement and head movement was too dangerous. So Muhammad kept his hands as high as possible. He managed to block a lot of shots he otherwise might have been caught by.