The all things technical thread.

Are you doing it because there isn't any good boxing gyms available or just because you really enjoy it?

My only worry about it is that if you pick up bad habits early, they can be VERY difficult to break.

Anyway, you should be able to adapt. It does sometimes depend on the individual and most importantly who is training you. Just make sure you get the basics under you and go for it. No one here is anymore of an expert than you are on this, so trust yourself and do whats right for you. :thumbsup

 

Cheers, Vic. :thumbsup

 

I have a theory. I think there are 3 big events that if they hadn't happened would've changed the history of boxing. One of those is Ray Leonard and his eye injury. So with that in mind. Here's the question and i know it's only conjecture but we have good basis to speculate. How high do you think Ray Leonard would've ranked had he not got that eye injury and lost 5 years? I believe he would've got close to Ray Robinson, bearing in mind the names that were around, the era and the fights that could've happened in that time.

 

If Leonard didn’t lose all of those years to the detached retina, along with beating a prime Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Kalule and a slightly older Hagler, he could have fought Mark Breland, Donald Curry, Aaron Pryor, Mike McCallum, Julian Jackson, Davey Moore, Milton McCrory, John Mugabi, Marlon Starling, Tony Ayala, etc. Could you imagine that résumé. All of those guys reached championship years from 1982-87, the years Leonard was off.

Even if he fought half of those guys his resume would be just sick. I’m not saying he would have won ALL of the fights. Nobody is going through that line up without losing a fight or two. But Leonard would have been the favourite in each of the fights and I’m sure he would have won the majority of them. I don’t know if he would be over Ray Robinson at that point but he would definitely be next to him. Even without the 5 years, most people have Leonard as a top 5 welterweight, which is boxings BEST historical division ever and most have him at least top 15 to 20 fighters ever. I have him top 10 to 15 and the best fighter of the last 30 years. Also the best finisher i've seen in that time.

 

The thing is though you can make a case that Leonard was more past prime than Hagler. Leonard was in worse shape. Hagler was active, fighting a smaller man. Leonard was injured and retired. His detached retina was no publicity stunt some people act like he was cherrypicking some washed up fighter. He was fighting the best fighter in the world who happened to be a middleweight! Leonard also had 1 terrible performance between 1982 and 1987. So if he waited for Hagler to slip, how much do you think he slipped and how much of a disadvantage do you think he was in fighting Hagler? Leonard was a HUGE underdog too. People thought he would get destroyed.

Some people will tell you when you say that "Well, Leonard was playing tennis behind the scenes". I didn't know tennis prepared you to take punches from one of the best middlweights of all time and the best fighter in the world at the time.

 

I disagree with this. Leonard is one of the most complete fighters i've seen, look at the different ATG styles he beat. I don't see how he had an 'unsustainable' style. He didn't always need his legs, he could fight in the pocket and was a mean SOB when pressing a fight and finishing and going to the body. Who was also very tough physically. I think he'd be favourite over all those and beat all those three. Tough fights yes. But very winnable for someone like Ray Leonard.