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

Louis is not a good example, since he had a better and higher guard than these guys. He was suceptible to the right, though.

Not true. He was, for example, very good at slipping the jab and countering. Dundee said Ali was the best he'd seen at this. Later on Ali also adopted a more orthodox parrying of the jab (watch second rd against Bob Foster, for example). But this is really beside the point.

Hands consistently at the waist is not a good idea. Vey few would be succesful with it today. I claim BS on anyone who claim otherwise. I know if you see a modern fighter with that style you'll say that he'll be exposed sooner or later. To try and justify it for old timers is just a contorted double standard.

But I've said this enough times now not to repeat myself anymore.

 

That's not a bad CV. Not at all. Levin and Scott are Swedes, just like I. What did you think of them?

Also do you find that there's any truth in that today's pros neglect training of technique in favour of physical training?

 

Well then what about Burley? Or maybe Tunney? or Wilde?

Maybe i should have said solid upperbody movement? I agree on that point. As for parries, Ali still didn't use it consistently throughout his career. For every jab he threw with his right in the proper place there are fifty where his right is at his side.

I never said that having both hands constantly at or below the waist is a great idea. I am saying that lots of fighters, even today with a focus on headhunting can be successful with cagey employment lower guard. Hearns, Mayweather, Jones Jr., Vitali, and a couple other modern all time greats adopt this stance and have success with it, and you can- if you're cognizant of what you're getting yourself into

 

Yes we had the entire Swedish olympian team, they were all managed by the same guy. My co trainer was Luis Lagerman, another Swede who was on the team years ago. Scott was a good mobile boxer. Neither lived up to their expectations. I was very disappointed with Levin when he fought Jeremy Williams. He never really got much further than journeyman status. He didnt really have a lot of heart in the trenches.
I think a lot of fighters today are pretty well versed in the fundamentals, but thats where it ends. There isnt much dimension to any of their games. You can only learn what someone can teach you and the level of knowledge amongst trainers is dwindling, and thats why the top trainers for the most part are all proteges of former great trainers and boxers.

 

Attila Levin is actually going to fight Robert Helenius for the EU version of the EBU title by the end of this month, a fight I'll try to catch live if I can buy a ticket. I thought he was retired since the Valuev fight, after which he claimed that the heavyweights are just too big for him (Levin is 6'5, 260 lbs).

 

But the thing is nobody ever did that. Not even the old-timers. When they used the crouch or when they were on the inside for example. It´s just a myth that they kept the hands low all the time. I mean people are going on about this, about them not knowing what a jab is, not using combination punching even so there is film of them doing it. :roll:

 

Herol Gaham's style against McCallum is a good example of a 10's-20s esque style against a more modern textbook technician between fighters of relatively similar natural talent imo, albeit a distorted ali-influenced hybrid.

If the talent is there then there's no reason to think older fighters wouldn't be able to succeed to varying levels and the better one would likely adapt well.

 

I was thinking about mentioning Graham and the early Hamed but I deemed it pointless because some people would just point out their perceived superior athleticism.

 

Two guys equally as talented, Ill take the guy that throws short straight crisp punches.

 

Jones and Ali did not do much blocking or parrying at all, not that they needed to, though both did use the high guard against the ropes. You can see both McFarland and Welsh correctly picking off, parrying and blocking punches with various methods, including the traditional high guard, even if they do keep their hands lower while not in danger.

It was a grueling 20 round bout, that makes a big difference. Now I'm not going to claim that what we see here is a mirror image of today's boxing, but a hundred years is bound to make a difference.

McFarland vs Gibbons is also on film I believe. The Gibbons vs O'Dowd fight is another fine filmed contest from the early 1900's, with crisper punching technique for those who prefer to see that.

Forrest vs Mosley I was a good example of modern boxing style, but fights like Forrest vs Mayorga remind us why boxing is not quite as simple as many other sports. Forrest, by far the technically more superior fighter, was mentally and physically overwhelmed by a relatively crude brawler Mayorga.

 

Also remember that neither McFarland or Welsh are the complete "product" in the film seen above. The fight was fought at a relatively early stage in each fighters' careers, before either were as famous as they would become. Welsh was 24 and McFarland I think was just 21 years old.

 

I think Forrest uncharacteristically fought in a wide stance and threw loopy wide punches against Mayorga in the fist fight, ala a slugfest, and that was the reason for his downfall. Look what the lighter hitting Spinks was able to do to Mayorga.
Forrest did not fight a smart fight and had zero respect for Mayorga. Im not trying to make excuses for Forrest, but just about every other technically proficient fighter took Mayorga apart fairly quickly and thats not to say Mayorga was not a solid guy and very successful with that style, its just that comparably skilled guys were beating him down the pipe pretty easily.
Its pretty basic, the more you open yourself up and arch your punches, the bigger target is left to be hit. Mayorga made up for a lot of his shortcomings with a great chin and punch, but he was easy to hit cleanly.

 

If boxing would be so easy there would be no betting.

 

Forrest was never a runner like Spinks though. When a man has had success in taking the fight to a Shane Mosley, he may think he can do it to anyone. Mayorga simply dragged him into a brawl, and ended up getting the better of it.

I don't disagree with you at all but Forrest's confidence in his style played into Mayorga's hands. Had Forrest boxed for a points win, he would have likely won, much like Spinks. But he tried to punch Mayorga out and do it impressively.

A lot of factors have to be taken into account in boxing when it comes down to it.

I'd say that Mayorga had a lot more going against him than only his wide swinging punching style. He was slow, had very little skill and no defense whatsoever, really none. He may have gotten away with some mistakes had he been granted with greater talent and technical schooling. The odd looping punch can take you by surprise, but with Mayorga there was no element of surprise to it as it was about all he threw.

 

Yes I agree, but again, and of course there are exceptions, for the most part, the shortest distance to a target is a straight line.

Agree with this too, because of the other variables that are involved like GA mentioned.