Here's a good break-down from Teddy Atlas of things you shouldn't do in the ring: This content is protected
I love the "sleepwalk" comment. I cracked up at that. When a heavyweight boxer under assault, does the 'Y' in the YMCA dance, it's not good and time for the alarm bells to start ringing..
Two very good break-downs of the merits and perils of Ali's technique: This content is protected This content is protected
This is kind of the crux of this thread. Atlas can name 100 things Wilder does "wrong." But the guy is on a tear right now. Is he really doing things wrong? Or is he just doing things different? Was Foreman doing things wrong? Or was he doing things different? What about Ali, who went against all convention by laying on the ropes against a puncher? People seem to prize methods over results. Technique over wins. I don't think most people appreciate the amount of technique that goes into each one of Wilder's unorthodox punches. The technique used to throw those punches may take away from the technique used to stay perfectly balanced.
Atlas reasoning is that Wilder will pay for that against better opposition. If you watch the Ali break downs both show examples where Ali's habits cost him. Thing is, a part of me love that stuff from Ali (not the Wilder examples, though, those are just examples of poor execution imo) because he is really walking along a razor's edge. When his speed and timing are just right it is thrilling and beautiful to watch, but when they're not I just feel frustrated and ultimately sad that he takes punishment he could have avoided, especially taking into account the brain damage he sustained. I say nothing of this to put Ali down, because I have always loved him and still do. And I get great joy out of him pulling out these insane maneuvers, but at the same time I feel "damn, you'd be even greater and, more importantly, less damaged if you'd adopted a more textbook style".
What if those technical flaws enabled him to perform well? Those technical "flaws" could be compromises he is making in order to excel in other traits. With your hands lower, you can move your upper body faster. It went well with his mobility, which went well with his natural speed and reflexes. Perhaps, and I suppose this is the case, that if he left his hands up, he would be under-utilizing his strengths, and therefor not performing to his full potential. And thus would have been a worse boxer. I think many people talk about "good technique" when they are referring to a standardized, safe method to develop anyone into a boxer. And people who excel the most using those same methods are often regarded as having the best technique. However, I believe this is wrong. I believe that you can have extraordinary technique using out of the box methods. These techniques may be riskier to use, but certain individuals excel at using them. And coaches won't teach these techniques, because they may not know it, and it probably won't work for most people. So you go with the safe, tried and true advice. The same way that you wouldn't suggest your daughter to drop out of school to explore her passion in writing. It's "bad" advice, and going to college will most likely end up better for her. But someone's kid will travel that unbeaten path despite the advice and become wildly successful because they felt or saw something. So coaches won't tell you to keep your hands low. And they can't teach you to fight like Ali. They are giving you sound, safe, effective, and efficient advice. And I don't think those methods should be mistaken for "correct" technique. Atlas, and modern boxing fans can take the **** out of Wilder all they want. He is knocking heads over in very successful fashion. He may flail his arms at times, or do a bunch of other things that they can point to and call it wrong. But can those people explain how he generates all that power for his punches? Are they accounting for that? Can they account for his success despite his apparent technical gaps? Can they ensure he keeps his power, and his success in fights, by fighting the way they think he should? I would say probably not to all of the above.
I think we're talking about two different categories here: Ali, RJJ, Nunn, Naz are examples of fighters with extreme natural talent that invented styles of their own. The positives with these styles are that they could confuse and frustrate opponents and and bait them into overreaching (personally, I think this can be done using traps with a more textbook style as well - PBF being a good example). The negatives is that there are no margins for error in these styles (text book technique is constructed with more fall backs) and that they often are more energy consuming than more text nook technique. For that reason these self-invented styles are somewhat found out against higher level of competition (Naz and you can argue the same for Nunn) or when the speed, stamina and reflexes they depend on fade with age (Ali and RJJ). That's been my argument all along, and I felt that the break downs of Ali's technique illustrated that quite well. As for the case of the mistakes by Wilder that Atlas highlighted, those are just instances of bad balance and coordination imo. I think Wilder would rather do without them. So far his speed, power and size has compensated for the fact that he doesn't have the best technique, but he has yet to face a top 5 fighter so it's too early to say how he will do against top opp. If he faces Joshua, my guess is that they will be separated by Joshua's better technique, but Wilder's power is enough to throw everything on its head at any given moment.
I don't always agree with, or even understand, some of your views, Rez, but a lot of that made absolute sense. Good technique, as I understand it, is maximising your strengths. It would be poor technique to do what has always been regarded as textbook if it minimised your effectiveness. Charley Goldman explained to AJ Liebling that he was scared to show Marciano too many orthodox boxing manoeuvres in case it impeded Rocky from doing what he was doing and, judging by results, doing effectively. As you have said, Ali would have learned boxing techniques as a kid but as he evolved, he may have found they curtailed his ability to jab and throw combinations on the move, the very thing that made him special, and decided against using them.
To give credit where due, you actually did two posts previously. Magnificent post. Most out of character.
I just agreed with Reznick's view and though it is in contrast to yours, Bokaj, I also see a lot of sense in what you say. A higher guard would have protected Ali from danger when his speed had left him. But it may have hindered him from fully capitalizing on his extraordinary speed when he had it. He may have been a good fighter for longer but would he, had he relied on taught technique rather than instinct, have ever been great? As a trainer, your role, imo, is to get your fighter to win and I feel that trainers should therefore make the fighter the best they can be with the gifts or limitations they, that is, the fighters, have. Now if that means that you are leaving that fighter vulnerable further down the road when their reflexes dull, that's a decision to take. Without his superlative speed, given his low guard and other shortcomings such as lack of body punching which a good trainer should have instilled, Ali avoids a lot of punishment and wins fights like the Norton or Young fights more convincingly but he may do that at the cost of never having been the amazing fighter he was. Do you want to burn brightly but briefly? Lacking the technical style to avoid punishment may not be the fault of the trainer if that trainer decided that to instill traditional disciplines would be to the detriment of his fighter's effectiveness. If the fighter goes on to take punishment later in his career, then that is where the manager should earn his 33% and get his man out of the way of danger. This has been a top thread, by the way, with really good opinions and respectful debate when those opinions are different. I've found myself swaying between the two. Great stuff.
Haha yeah! If you thought it was any good, I must not be myself I appreciate it E. There was an interview with Angelo Dundee on video. In it, he said that he once yelled at Muhammad to keep his hands up in sparring. He said Ali started to get hit all over the place. So then Dundee yelled "Keep your hands down!" and Ali started dodging everything again. I'm trying to find it. And if anyone else knows where to find it, please let us know!
Pleasure, Rez. Hope you find that video. I've been thinking about this and I'm going to liken Ali to Oasis. (I think we agree that traditional techniques should only be eschewed by the truly exceptional eg Ali, Jones and Marciano when the pros of what they are god at outweigh the cons of their traditional technical flaws). Liam Gallagher rasped when he sang and that damaged his throat. It was an unsustainable method of singing that a voice coach would have tried to 'correct'. But that voice, while it was only at its best for a few years, was the maverick piece in the jigsaw that made Oasis so great. Had Liam ever been taught to sing correctly, would we ever have heard of Oasis? Bloody hell. What have I been smoking?
Nah I get your point. I've always felt that Tysons team lacked a long term plan beyond his physical prime. Perhaps they did discuss it, and things just got messy down the road shuffling teams. In the end, when it comes to ATGs, especially elites, I give them and their trainers the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to realistically imagine that we are offering Ali novel advice by suggesting he keep his hands up, or lean away less. It's odd to me how liberally people criticize the methods and techniques of championship level boxers. The major developments happened long ago, in the gym, during amateur years, before ever having a pro fight. The chances that they succeed as a pro are extremely slim. It takes extraordinary ability to become a champion. And the idea that once they do become champion, and hit the mainstream radar, that's when people criticize their methods? I understand it for casual fans, but not for aficionados. People say Max Baer should've taken his fights more seriously. Yeah, from an arm chair outside the ring ropes. But how do we know his clownish demeanor didn't give him a much necessary sense of control? Once a fighter becomes an ATG, they are like incredible artists. You stop suggesting what they should do, and you begin to just observe and appreciate them. You are happy for them when they succeed, sad for them when they fail. And hopefully you learn something from them. But you respect their mastery of the craft, and the motives that drive their actions. This syndrome that many aficionados have, where they think they know better than every fighter, where they went wrong, how they could've succeeded, etc.. is a silly byproduct from a habit developed from early Boxiana where gaps in knowledge were carelessly filled with low quality explanations motivated by insecurity.
The greatest defensive boxers ever to live fought with hands low. Tunney, Ali, Pep, Benny Leonard, Loughran. Endless list.