Picking out the technical shortcomings as compared to modern boxing - McFarland-Welsh

Agree. I'd also add that the very straight back stance and relative lack of head and upperbody movement is a bad combination with such a low guard. There's also a lot of one punch and then falling into a clinch, due to the relatively lacking balance and jab that you speak of.

 

There isn't too much of a difference really. The only real difference is that the glove size today allows fighters to block punches in a tight guard, whereas in the days of Packey and Freddie there was more an emphasis on parrying shots and keeping the head as distant from the action as possible to avoid as much head/punch connectivity.

Oh and there's no way that people would wear underpants like that into a ring nowadays - simply none.

P.S. Anyone that complains about there being too much grappling in these sorts of fights needs to watch Hopkins-Calzaghe and STFU :good

 

That was an extreme example, though. I don't think this is. It was also at a higher weight.

 

This was a 20 round bout though.

 

i agree and disagree, while the skill leel was good actually and they did move their head better then i though

but the glove size, i disagree, you can use a highguard with small gloves
just look at mma, most guys do not keep their hands down, they use a very high guard

with small gloves you just gotta rise your arms a bit higher

 

MMA fighters are **** at striking. Bodypunches are a lot more dangerous with small gloves, thus protecting the body is more important. You can use a highguard but it´s not as efficient. Add both up and you have the reason to use a low guard.

Aside of that, there are plenty of fighters around today who use a low gurad too.

 

False. If anything their guards are lower for the most part, but for a different reason. They're doing so to be in position to stop the takedown, therefore it's not reasonable to compare MMA to boxing in any way, really.

As for the "low guard as a deterrant" theory, I've said it before and I'll say it again: go through the history of the sport, and name me the greats that have used a textbook high guard. I guarantee you'll find a far higher amount that have used a variation of the lower guard. In many ways, depending on their tactics and general methods, it's proven to be more effective.

 

Still, though, those with very low guards, like Jones and Ali, have gotten critized for it. It has been (and is) seen as a technical flaw.

 

Agreed. Winky Wright, Mike Tyson and so on are the exception, not the rule. Just look at the two greatest heavyweights, Ali and Louis: Ali of course had his hands very low, and Louis was hardly fighting in a peak-a-boo style either.

 

It's not necessarily a flaw unless it's been proven to be a weak point.

 

It was... for both of them. Just watch how their careers unravel.

 

It is more there own placement. Most were still superb blockers IMO.


Also one thing I notced in the video is that when McFarland changed angles he would nearly always shoot, that is sublime stuff. Alo whenever he leaned back he shot, which is pure textbook.

 

You cannot punch harder looping or throwing wide punches. The straighter the punch the more effective, the more compact the hook the more effective. A squared stance and low guard promotes wide loopy shots.

Even some of the more modern fighters who carry a low guard raise it and deliver their punches straight and properly.

 

It was toward the end of their careers, but really only Ali showed weaknesses during his prime. You're missing the point, though, as Ali and Jones were far from the only men to fight successfully out of a low guard.

That would fall under my point about "tactics and general methods".

History has shown us there are many exceptions to the rule. Regardless, you answer this in your next two lines.

The same is true of many past fighters. Not every fighter who fought out of a low guard used it for the same reasons/utilized the same techniques. Typically, the low guard does not translate to a squared up stance, either. Usually, the likes of De La Hoya (high guard) are the culprits of this. Even in the footage posted in this thread of McFarland and Welsh the bodies were slanted toward the back foot as they should be, despite your claims otherwise.

 

I agree, but you're going the other way with the argument as if to show that it's actually better. I'm not sure I agree with that.