Mastering a certain style of boxing- let's break down the technical factors

Feel free to offer up a fighter/boxer who you feel excelled technically in all of the aspects of a particular boxing style to a degree that makes you comfortable enough to label him a master of that style.

I'll start things off by being bland in terms of the style i'll choose to observe (we can get more particular as the thread grows).

Okay, my style is simply 'the agressor'. My exponent, Ruben Olivares.

I feel he mastered:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOl5aoDEq6Y[/ame]

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

Please contribute with other insights to fighters and their styles

 

Well i was just being unspecific really with labelling him an 'agressor', that's just an overview of all the styles of fighters who take the lead so to speak.

For practical examples, i'd call Chavez an educated pressure man, Armstrong a swarmer, aslugger to me is someone like Foreman. It's hard to label Olivares as any one type of aggressor exclusively for me, he definitely brought educated pressure to the table, but he is definitelyy a slugger as well. Difficult to say really, he's probably the complete aggressor from a technical standpoint.

I know you have contributions in store McGrain.

 

The Boxer-Puncher - Yuri Arbachakov

Footwork

His footwork is impeccable to generating power whilst still be able to move and 'box', so to speak. He did this as his feet were always kept in the correct stance to punch, even when moving backwards or laterally. His feet were kept the same distance apart at all times so his balance never failed him as his base was always solidly secured.

Ring Generalship

I know 'Ring Generalship' has a more broad meaning, but the two essential and tangible attributes that make it up are: controll of range and pace of the bout. Arbachakov did both of these well. The controll of range was mostly down to his good footwork, as he was always able to move whilst being in a position to strike, meaning he had controll of nearly all ranges due to the threat he posed. He also knew how to maximise his punches as he would often take a step back to gain maximum leverage in his shots, rather than stand at close range and sacrifice the long straight shots. The controll of pace wasnt really crucial to his style so I wont comment.

Offence

His offence was a delight to watch he would start at range with his jab and bring in the combinations after it, much like Teeto observes with Olivares, every shot would be turned in perfectly and be thrown textbook. He let the punches flow from his body using the momentum is his hips and shoulders to generate the next punch leading into a fluid almost effortless motion. Even when on the back foot he would be looking for chances to get on the offensive, luring his opponents onto right hands and left hooks perfectly, alot of it down to his positioning and controll of range. His punching power really was phenomenal he could take a guy out in one punch, which is very rare for a Flyweight. This is definitly where the puncher aspect comes in.

Defence

His defence was simple but effective. He kept his hands up and his elbows tucked in, the most basic of defensive positions. And it worked he would pick shots off with his gloves and pitch back with his own. The other pillar of his defence was his controll of the range and his foot movement, he would always look t be just outside of his opponents range but able to pose a threat to his opponent, this is again the controll of range and footwork I have talked about earlier.

His first fight with Muangchai Kittikasem really sums it up well. I think this is it, I have it on DVD so havent watched it on Youtube but this looks like it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYW2Uw2s2CU[/ame]

 

Very nice breakdown Greg, Such a good box-puncher, great how he could turn off the ropes, and his shoulder rolling/head movement on the outside wasn't too bad either.

 

Yeh, he is quality, I know I think mor ehighly of him that most though.

 

Teeto knows his stuff! One of the best technical minds on the forum

 

Thanks Suzie, wasn't expecting that,

and also, bump

 

Great idea for a thread. We should have more threads like this. My last effort sank like the Titanic after a handful of posts.

 

Well let's raise that ship then itrymariti, make a post if you will. Or if you got any comments on the two that are already up then fire away.

 

One thing though, i'd rather people don't break down any 'complete technicians', whose game was consistently to be 'complete', like Hopkins, Whittaker etc. If people can help it i'd rather we leave them out, rather we go for a specific style of fighter. If you get what i mean

 

I'm knackered right now, I'm going to go to bed in a minute. I will make my contribution at some point though, I'm thinking perhaps on Chavez.

 

Yeah, that would be quality. Nice one itrymariti. Bed now, what a *****:rofl kidding

 

The pure boxer: Sumbu Kalambay

Might seem an odd choice to some, but I genuinely believe that Kalambay ranks as perhaps one the greatest of all pure boxers at middleweight or above from technical and head-to-head standpoint. Pure boxer is a potentially tricky and often vague term where individual interpretation is concerned, so I'll try to cover as much as I can without overdoing it. Some might argue that he was a defensive technician but we'll not go into that yet. Onwards...

His jab was excellent for a start. Not the hardest but extremely variable: he could throw it from various angles to body or head, turn it into a hook, use it offensively or defensively.

His foot work was smooth and precise inside or out, as was his control of distance and his innate sense of equilibrium at all times ( a difficult and underrated skill IMO).

The reflexes, the instinctive ability to read an opponent, figure out patterns of movement and set himself accordingly was a prevalent facet of his game, as was his ability to keep an opponent wary of what might be coming back from whichever direction and whichever hand. But he could lead too - be it against specifically limited opponents - when the occasion called for it with the safeguard of being able to reposition himself safely in the blink of eye if he ever lead and missed, though his handspeed, leverage, timing and general punch trajectory meant that he tended to land anyway. And he could throw every punch in the book.

His hand positioning was as spot-on as is required for such a smooth defensive fighter, as was his movement from the waist up - both of which seemed to allow served him very well against Barkley, DeWitt and McCallum, all of whom tried to break him down to the body at various times, usually to only be cracked by left-hook counters in return. The one that nearly laid DeWitt out cold was a beauty.

Which leads me to his punching power when he actually used it. Like Benitez, Pep and others, he actually had a considerable dig of him. Not a hallmark of the pure boxer unless you count someone like Hearns as one on the basis of hitting without being hit.

There are probably more convincing or in-depth ways to say what I'm trying to say, and you might think of the typical middleweight pure boxer as someone like Archer or Dupas, which they were, but I've still always thought that Kalambay fit the description very well. Technically and naturally excellent with the propensity to hit without being hit back.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9fqGPArW5U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9fqGPArW5U[/ame]

 

Top thread by the way teeto, good man.