Unconventionalism Vs. Technical Prowess

****ing ******. Did I say that other sports haven't progressed? No. The truth is, boxing has stagnated since the 50's and before. Like I said, try reading up on the subject instead of lambasting me for praising classic fighters. You mentioned RJJ... The book I mentioned in particular uses him as a classic example of the talented fighter full of holes in terms of technique.

Do you even know what a swarmer is?

 

You are insane. Boxing hasn't stagnated since the 50's. There is less grappling and more defense. More like since the late 70's-80's with the rise of cable, PPV, and multi-million dollar NBA and NFL contracts. The lower weights are still fairly deep, but declining to world fitness in general.

Who cares about his technique? You need to learn the difference between being able to box and being able to fight. RJJ could fight. He was a natural. He would kick the can of ANYONE (within reason) in his prime. JL, in his prime, was 200lbs. Jones would have sparked him out.

Yeah I know what a swarmer is. I also know they don't hold on to titles long. :deal However morons like you confuse "fun to watch" with "skills". :roll:

 

The 50's may have been premature, 70's is closer to the truth. But the wane of quality of trainers, and the decreasing quality of challengers/number of contests began after the 50s and more than anything else that is the reason for the decline of the actual technique of boxing. There is more defense in this era of boxing, where people can't glove block or parry for crap, and every outboxer thinks he's ****ing Muhammad Ali and tries to sway back with punches? Don't give me that bull****. As for RJJ vs. Louis.... Louis had the same ****ing talent that jones did. Have you watched Joe fight? Serious question? He's the greatest boxer-puncher of all time, and easily has one of the greatest title reigns in HW history. Jones was never a natural HW. Louis had better technique, and similar physical prowess, and he faced competition that is on a whole ****ing different level than what RJJ went up against. You don't think Joe could fight? He knocked peoples teeth through their mouthgards. Make no mistake, RJJ had great KO power too but Louis was more accurate and every single one of his punches was aimed at a vital point.

As for the **** comment about swarmers with short title reigns.... Marciano, Tyson, Dempsey. Nothing more needs to be said. If you don't think being a proper infighter/swarmer takes skill you're even ****ing dumber than I thought you were.

 

Just stop with that "after the 50's" crap. The difference is that the quality of opponent actually ROSE because there were less CANS involved in the sport! Training demands increased forcing guys to fight LESS. The era of guys you are talking about threw two to three punches falling in and HELD, regularly used dirty tactics, jumped on opponents before they were up or had a knee on the canvas, and don't even get me started on the RAMPANT racism. You think it was just "magic" how as civil rights movement flourished so did certain groups dominance in the prevailing sports of the day BEFORE cash was dictated by talent not "story"?

Who can't block or parry for crap? Who? Guys who CAN'T BOX. It has crap to do with the era! Also, what is wrong with patterning yourself after Ali if you posess that attribute set? It is a fight not an exact military ceremony. You do what you can get away with using your physical gifts. I don't care what technique a guy had. Against some guys flawless ain't good enough. RJJ knocks them spark out. Tyson too.

Joe Louis in no way had the same athletic talent RJJ did. No way in hell. SRR? I will give him that. Joe Louis. Nope. Yes I have watched him fight. I have watched a few of his "defining" fights. No he doesn't look like he could beat Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, or the Klits. Hell maybe not Ken Norton. Sorry man. Sorry. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great boxer. You are caught up in "majesty" not looking at the damned fighter.

Playing semantics. Here you go again with your pre-1950-Jim-
Crow-grapple-fight heros. Don't put Tyson in that bag with those guys. Tyson had a distinct boxing style he never winged punches just to wing them. He had pinpoint precision. Not like your heros that punched arms just cause it was something to punch. You wouldn't know a great infighter if you saw one. Your eyes are coverend in cobewebbs from spending too much time in the archives.

 

I wouldnt call SRL unorthodox at all. He held his hands low sometimes but that was about it, otherwise he had great technical abilities. He used more movement for his defense compared to keeping his hands high but he wasnt someone with odd stances and angles like RJJ or hamed.

I wouldnt call Ali unorthodox either. I mean he had an amazing text book jab just amazing and his footwork was amazing as well. The only thing he did was keep his hands low but that isnt nearly enough to be unorthodox. To me unorthodox means using the jab sparingly and having odd angles and positions.

I tend to value technical skills atleast in my favorite fighters. Morales, Winky, Hearns, Floyd, Foreman, Klitchsckos

Come to think of it I usually wanted to see the unorthodox guys get knocked out my my favorites. Morales vs Hamed and Darchiniyan vs Marquez are the ones I always wanted to see. I also wanted to see an RJJ - hopkins rematch earlier than it happened by about 5-8 years

 

Are you honestly accusing earlier fighters of being more clinch happy than the huggers of today? And of using dirty tactics? That's just plain bull****, and founded in absolutely nothing. You can't be ****ing serious. And you're saying Tyson, Holyfield, and the ****ing Klits could beat Louis? Sorry dude, Joe Louis is typically ranked from 1-3 among all heavyweights, and only someone with absolutely no sense of boxing history or the sport overall could say something like that. As for Marciano and Dempsey's skills, you can argue about those by themselves. I never said they were. The argument was about the title reigns of swarming pressure fighters- and Dempsey and Marciano have some of the longest. But your reading comprehension isn't really up to scrap, huh?


Louis had immense physical talent and that is ****ing undeniable. His handspeed and punching power are blatantly obvious, even to someone with zero boxing knowledge.

 

depends there are times either one can win you got example of ,mayweather,hopkins,whitaker,Louis in the Technical Prowess and then in the unconventinal you got Calzaghe,Jones,Pacquiao,Marciano(his crouching style was very unconventianl) all group of fighters wer winners and they either lost to an unconventianl or Technical fighter(except Rock,PBF, Calzaghe) so it depends on what you like more but i say it's dead even.

 

some other things to look at an unconventinal fighter fighting a technical fighter is more likely to be caught by Str8 punches, Off balance, hit with a jab, open to more counter shots. a Technicall fighter when fighting a Unconventinal fighter can get frustrated and confused, More likely to get caught with a punch they don't see coming, become very predictable, usally easier to outwork as they try more often to stick to the game plan as an unconventional fighter is more adaptable.

 

Founded in BS? Where do you think attached gloves, standing 8's, neutral corners, etc... came from moron?

Keep living in the past. Nothing you saw would let you shatter your BS image. It is like going to the water park for the first time as a kid. As long as you don't go back it was the most spectacular place in the world and every time you retell the story the park get more and more grand.

Sure they do man. Sure they do. Again you demonstrate how myopic your view of the sport is. Sure they had long reigns. Look at the time in history. Look at the political and social climate. Look at what was taking place in American history. Look at what the demographics of boxing became.

Your bull headed ass is too blind to see the connection and your old men yapping in your ear about "the good old days". I am sure you think that Jack Johnson was the first Black man with "the skills and mental capacity take part in a sport meant for gentleman" such as boxing. :roll:

 

Actually, champions tended to have shorter reigns back then because a thing called parity was present in the sport at the time, because fighters would fight more often, resulting in more losses overall. Which should be obvious. That's why ridiculously dominant fighters like Langford, Greb, Armstrong, etc continue to be on top of P4P lists.

Are you accusing me of being racist now? When I've been singing the praises of black champions throughout the entire topic? Doesn't that make you the biggest idiot of all time? Anyway, we're both done here because neither of us are conceding points.

 

idk if i would even call pac unconventional... really he is a bit like srl with his combos and hes got some angles but he is pretty skilled technically. I mean he does leave himself open at times still but freddy has worked to close that up.


When i think of unconventional i think of someone like darchiniyan, hamed or maybe spinks and sam solimon.