The boxer NO ONE could touch was a myth

Mark playing a blinder again, I see. Threads like this are a side effect of too much trumpet polishing.

 

You're not seeing the forest for the tree's here Mark. Saying "Locche constantly dipped below his opponents waist which left no legal targets, that`s the secret to his defense" is wrong on so many levels.

Going under punches was just one part of his defense and was hardly constant and even less so the secret to his defense.

Have a good hard look at your own video and actually look to see how little his head is truly below the opponents waist. Look really hard but it should be quite obvious, really. You might be surprised.

Also look at when and why he gets low on the vast majority of occasions. He's going under punches. I mean, if a punch is going at your head you can go as low as you need to to get under it. You're certainly not going to wear it when you can slip under it as easily and efficiently as Locche does. On top of this take note how quickly he straightens back up. The way you describe it he's waddling around the ring with his head just off the floor.

You will find that he doesn't get down to the level you accuse him of anything like you think he does.
You will find the vast majority of times he goes low it's getting under a punch that's been thrown.
You will find he goes under then is upright again in a jiffy.

In the first flurry of the clips for example his head doesn't get below his opponents waist once. Please confirm you can see and understand that much.

Also you have a look at the rules of various commissions and you will find it's not often even mentioned.

 

Stanley Kirk Burrell would have been an untouchable boxer.

You know him better as MC Hammer.

 

In amateur boxing you're warned if you're bending at the waist like that instead of the textbook bending at the knees and I think that's the right way to go about it.

I don't think the examples given are that bad, though, since Loche pops right back up again. What frustrates me is when a boxer "defends" by leaving his whole back exposed to the opponent. At those occasions it should either be a warning or the opponent should be able to hit what's exposed to him, preferably the former.

 

This is what happens when you spend too much time on YouTube, listening to people who have never stepped foot in the ring.

 

A spoiler doesn't stand in front of their opponent while making them miss.

 

Funny thing with this video is, his head hardly ever goes below his opponent’s waist.

First, we’d have to define what this means, which the rulebook does not. Does part of the head going below the top of the opponent’s trunks (if they are not above the navel) mean that a boxer’s head is below the waist? I don’t think so.

The rule doesn’t say ‘any part of the head,’ it says ‘the head.’ If you were a serial killer and chopped off someone’s ear or nose, no one would say you cut off their head. so the head is the entirety of the head, not part of it. Which means if the top, or back, of the head is even barely above the waistband, then the head is not below it.

And if the head is even with the waistband, it is by definition not below it.

So watch again and you’ll see almost no examples of his head dipping entirely below the waistband. And actually tons of good defense where he’s standing straight up, So the placement of the head in relation to the opponent’s waist is hardly ‘the secret’ to his defensive success.

Oh, and while we’re at it, if a guy does this throw a freaking uppercut. He’s giving it to you.

 

I'd have my eyes checked Antman. As for it being illegal you need to provide a lot more than what you actually did rules wise.

Also go and have a look at round 1 of Tyson - Tucker. Just that single round. You will see at least one solid example of a fighters head TRULY below his opponents waist and going by your eyesight/interpretation you will see many more.

 

I mean you could criticise the shifty nature of Argentinian boxing favouring it's home boxers, their weird scoring criteria at the time or how Locche stunk out the joint several times exploiting these rulesets, but instead you criticise the least criticisable area.

 

You have a preference while denying objective reality.