Was Max Schmeling just a crude bar room brawler?

I seriously doubt any top trainers would be as dismissive as Pat M is about guys who held world titles in the modern era or managed to defeat a fighter of Joe Louis’s caliber in his physical prime for one.

Then you have Pat M shitcanning past greats while spouting the prowess of a guy like Wilder who a guy like me (who doesn’t hang around gyms sniffing jockstraps) could see was technically horrible himself. So then Deontays bubble burst as predictably happened and he looked clueless in the process. So why would I rate Pats opinion (with all his thousands of supposed hours training and watching fighters) on any fighter after that? I understand we all get things wrong but when you pass yourself off as an expert and the fighter you’re trumpeting gets shown to be a fraud then your credibility is now shot imo.

I recall they did an article in Ring magazine years ago in which they interviewed the most esteemed boxing trainers of that time (Dundee, Steward, Giachetti and quite a few others) and they asked them the same questions about boxing basics ie how to jab, how to position a fighters hands, footwork, stance, what part of the fist to punch with etc etc... and these experts with a multitude of world champions and accolades in the sport couldn’t agree on a single ****ing thing. Which proved to me that boxing techniques are largely open to interpretation, there are no hard and fast rules and that results are the best thing to judge a fighter on and not some anonymous internet posters opinion.

 

It's amazing that I have to trot out this vid whenever a stupid thread question such as this one is brought up about Schmeling...
I think it amply supplies the evidence that Schmeling was a highly skilled fighter...something that even the dimmest General forum dweller would have to acknowledge.

This content is protected

 

Spot on.

You can see his agenda a mile off. He’s a modernist flunky pure and simple.

The pomposity is what gets me. After the first AJ-Ruiz fight he crapped on about how he and the sages at his gym discussed the fight beforehand and came to the conclusion that Ruiz would win! I mean what a load of absolute BS! Fights are sometimes tricky to predict and big upsets (like AJ-Ruiz 1) generally leave everyone scratching their head. Funnily enough a lot more people (like Pat M) seemed to pick upsets like this after the fact without letting the rest of us in on it beforehand, I wonder why? Probably because he didn’t see it coming any ****ing more than the rest of us did but still wants us to think he’s boxing’s answer to Yoda.

 

When I read what these guys write, I wonder what they are watching when they watch boxing. Maybe they just see two hands moving? For people who consider fundamentals to be optional, who consider someone a "boxing snob" who can spot when a fighter is off balance when he misses a punch, has to reset himself after throwing a punch, or crosses his feet, boxing must be just a place to see somebody get hurt or bloody? People who have been in a gym for a week can usually spot fundamental mistakes that fighters make.

One of them said he read a story from a boxing magazine about different trainers teaching different things concerning hand position, what part of the hand to hit with, feet positioning etc. I'm sure that's true, but "fundamentals", like moving the foot first that is in the direction the fighter is moving (for an orthodox fighter, the left foot moves first going forward and left, the right foot first going back and right), chin down, elbows in, if you move one foot 8", move the other 8", don't change. Of course trainers teach different stances, some like feet shoulder width apart, some like wider, some put the hands on each side of the face like "ear muffs", some put then in front, our basic is looking over the lead hand and the back hand beside the jaw with the elbows in, the fighter can change that himself after he starts sparring and finds what works for him. Those are not "fundamentals", they are "preferences."

What part of the hand to hit with...there are different schools of thought on that one. Some believe that hitting with the first two knuckles is best because they are bigger, in the Jack Dempsey "how to" book, he made a good case for hitting with the bottom three by showing that if you hold your fist against a wall, the bottom three will naturally line up with the top knuckle not touching. Makes sense, but again what part of the hand to hit with is a "preference."

If a trainer doesn't teach boxing from the "feet up" I'd get away from him, I don't know of any other way to learn fundamentals. A lot of things will change from gym to gym, but if the trainer is good, fundamentals won't. I don't consider fundamentals to be optional, for the posters here that do, they might want to avoid my posts?

 

I think you miss the point.