The Sweet Science

FTA69

I was thinking we good do with a thread that perhaps discusses the more technical aspects of boxing and training, or a place where we can put up videos that might help our understanding of the sweet science.

The above is a link to Bernard Hopkins giving an impromptu lesson to MMA star Rashad Evans. In it he covers his approach to scoring with the right hand without planting, the utilisation of the shoulder roll, fighting in the pocket and also using footwork to feint an opponent.

It really is great stuff, and while Hopkins isn't the most popular fighter here, it can't be denied the man is a master of the craft. I hope to God he goes into training after his retirement.

Deiseboy01

Very good. His explaination of how he doesn't set up the right, just lets it go is a little ironic as that's probably how Calzage beat him. Relentless volume of punches, never got set himself. Just pop pop pop all night long.

weemcd

Thanks for posting, ill put up any links I can think of.

Love a good technical breakdown, me.

FTA69

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/2/11/3973078/jack-slacks-greatest-strikers-of-roy-jones-jr

Here's a great article about Roy Jones. While it's fair to say that Roy Jones relied primarily on his amazing athleticism, it's also important to add that Jones wasn't blindly leaping around the place. He used his speed and explosive movement not only to land punches, but also to feint his opponent, put him off balance and to create angles which set up opportunities for devastating combinations.

walshb

I always got the impression that Jones really feared getting hit. It was high on his mind. Even when attacking and throwing he seemed to also be defending and pulling back a little.

FTA69

walshb wrote: »

I always got the impression that Jones really feared getting hit. It was high on his mind. Even when attacking and throwing he seemed to also be defending and pulling back a little.

Definitely. He used to launch in with these shots and as the article says, often roll to his left and well out of range. Perhaps though, that's necessary when you throw shots when you're not securely planted and in the best possible position to defend yourself?

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

Definitely. He used to launch in with these shots and as the article says, often roll to his left and well out of range. Perhaps though, that's necessary when you throw shots when you're not securely planted and in the best possible position to defend yourself?

I think he may have left behind a bit of power in doing so. He had a good defense, but it was not an innate and natural defense. It was reflexes and timing.

FTA69

Great video breaking down Rigo v Donaire and a good analysis of Rigo's flawless technique.

House of Blaze

walshb wrote: »

I always got the impression that Jones really feared getting hit. It was high on his mind. Even when attacking and throwing he seemed to also be defending and pulling back a little.

Worst offender for that is Hayes without a doubt.

Never seen a more cowardly fighter.

megadodge

House of Blaze wrote: »

Worst offender for that is Hayes without a doubt.

Never seen a more cowardly fighter.

If you're going to criticise someone at least get their name right.
I presume you're talking of David Haye (not Hayes).

To call any fighter a coward is obviously a sign of serious ignorance, especially a two-weight world champion.

House of Blaze

megadodge wrote: »

If you're going to criticise someone at least get their name right.
I presume you're talking of David Haye (not Hayes).

To call any fighter a coward is obviously a sign of serious ignorance, especially a two-weight world champion.

True enough, I misspelled the name.

I was referring to his manner and approach to the sport. He's not 'a coward' as such, I do in fact know that it takes serious balls to get in the ring as I was picked for the inter varsity competitions in college.

But his approach was far too cautious and fearful of being hit, hence he fought in a cowardly fashion.

megadodge

House of Blaze wrote: »

True enough, I misspelled the name.

I was referring to his manner and approach to the sport. He's not 'a coward' as such, I do in fact know that it takes serious balls to get in the ring as I was picked for the inter varsity competitions in college.

But his approach was far too cautious and fearful of being hit, hence he fought in a cowardly fashion.

Are you referring to his whole career there?

Cos if you are you're miles off the mark.

House of Blaze

Just the tail end to be honest.

Listen though, we obviously have a difference of opinion on him but this isn't the thread to be discussing it so can we drop this?

FTA69

This breakdown of Floyd's ability is also quite good (if you can stand the annoying jazz music.)

walshb

Cortez in the Hatton fight was a disgrace. One of the most inept performances I have ever seen. He was Floyd's second man in the ring. Hatton was fighting two people. In one word Floyd's greatest asset is his anticipation.

menoscemo

Here's a great example of the sweet science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1t2yAK_wU

FTA69

Great video explaining the genesis of Tyson's defence and even a clip of Cus D'Amato trying to explain it's merits to Muhammad Ali.

walshb

A prime and prepared Tyson was such a student of the art of boxing. He was boxing. Ferociously aggressive yet subtle and thinking.

menoscemo

walshb wrote: »

A prime and prepared Tyson was such a student of the art of boxing. He was boxing. Ferociously aggressive yet subtle and thinking.

I agree that he certainly had the potential to be the best ever. Sadly that potential was never realised.

walshb

menoscemo wrote: »

I agree that he certainly had the potential to be the best ever. Sadly that potential was never realised.

I think you're right, AND as regards title defenses and reign and impact he's right near the top. Look at what he he did in that 4 year span from 1986-1989. Apart from Louis/Ali and Holmes it's possibly the best resume of the rest.

I give Joe Louis the best part of 1 rd with Tyson before he gets smashed. Holmes prime doesn't do much better than 1988, and a prime Ali has a hell of tough time getting a decision win.

FTA69

Tyson himself said a prime Holmes would have beaten him, whether that's true or not who knows but I doubt he said it lightly. Similarly I think George Foreman would have given Tyson fits. I also think Lewis and Vitali would have been well able to match him.

I think he'd have beaten Ali.

FTA69

Perhaps not known for being the most technical fighter but he was at the top of the game for long enough and was well able to mix it. Here Ricky Hatton explains how he can set up a body shot using feints and pivoting. He also talks a bit about how to be effective when you're seemingly smothered.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

Tyson himself said a prime Holmes would have beaten him, whether that's true or not who knows but I doubt he said it lightly. Similarly I think George Foreman would have given Tyson fits. I also think Lewis and Vitali would have been well able to match him.

I think he'd have beaten Ali.

A lot of fighters say complimentary things about others. Just analyzing it it seems a strange thing to say if he really means it. Watch Holmes' style and career and Mike should see that he always would have an excellent chance of landing a flush shot. Plus, Tyson has to know that his own chin is solid, and that he is a brutally efficient finisher, unlike Shavers and Snipes. Holmes can run, move and pop a jab and 1-2 Tyson's way. IMO that is not near enough to deter and beat Tyson.

As to Foreman. I think a lot of people base the claim on Foreman beating Tyson on the fact that he destroyed Frazier. Now, anyone trying to say it's a similar outcome is BS to me. Tyson offers a whole lot more than Frazier and his straight in and left hook. Tyson's feet are faster, hands faster and he uses angles. He was a deadly power punching machine, who also took a great shot. He had a far more varied punching attack than Frazier. Foreman was wild/wide and hittable, and he could be dropped.

I think Cus D'Amato said that Foreman would be too much for Mike. Thing is that Cus died in late 1985, about 2-3 years before Tyson matured and peaked. Not sure he'd still think that had he lived to see Tyson's 4 year reign of destruction.

LL for me is too much of a risk to bet on. If McCall and Rahman can get to that chin then a prime 21 year old Tyson can. And, Tyson was a far better overall puncher. Plus he had a very good engine and defense. Lewis I don't see putting much of a beating on him. You need to consistently paste Tyson to beat him. I am speaking about the Tyson from 1986-1989. I believe the February 1990 Tyson had lost step or two. He had been partying and had lost all those people that were best for him.

FTA69

I'm not one of these lads trying to run Tyson down at all; I think he was unreal. All I am saying is that he's not invincible and he could be beaten. Tyson didn't like men who fought tall against him and he certainly had a hard time with fighters who weren't terrified of him.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm not one of these lads trying to run Tyson down at all; I think he was unreal. All I am saying is that he's not invincible and he could be beaten. Tyson didn't like men who fought tall against him and he certainly had a hard time with fighters who weren't terrified of him.

Not at all meaning that you are running him down.

I think the whole "they were terrified" of him is another excuse used by people who won't give Tyson the due credit. Some just got destroyed. The ones who fought back still got clearly beaten. I never discuss Tyson post prison. I don't see the point. He had some wins and some losses, but he wasn't near the same physical specimen.

Douglas sure did stand tall and fight hard, and he got the job done. But don't you think that Tyson that night looked off? He looked off right from the first bell to me. A spark was missing. He wasn't the same as regards ferocity and speed. Now, sure, Douglas' height and reach and jab and talent played its part, but I can't help thinking that the Tyson from 1986-1989 would have beaten that Douglas by KO.

After this Tyson had some quality wins over a very capable Ruddock. That version of Tyson was close to his best again. Then he gets jailed and it's pretty much over as regards ever being able to get to the 80s level. 3 years inside is a lot of time to be inactive and denied freedom to train properly.

As to invincible. Well, all the greats apart from Marciano had losses. But, on their absolute best day I would rate Tyson as almost number 1 as regards being invincible.

walshb

FTA69, who have you got with a 21 year old Tyson vs. the 1991/1992 Holyfield?

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

FTA69, who have you got with a 21 year old Tyson vs. the 1991/1992 Holyfield?

Tyson is one of the most divisive figures in any sport ever. There seems to be very little middle ground when he is being discussed. Some will have you believe he is this mythical figure who for 4 years was invincible and would KO all the greats in one night. While others state that he couldn't beat anyone with a good jab that wasn't afraid of him. I'm in between and believe that he was a great fighter for a brief period and would give most Hws a hard night's work but would be beaten by a few.

I would have loved to see Holy vs Tyson in their primes. I'd make Tyson a slight favourite but all depends on Evander's tactics for me. If he comes out all macho and trades then he's in trouble. If he stands off and let's Mike get into a rythm he's in trouble. Needs to jump on Mike from mid range doubling up the jab, hitting him with hard combos and getting out of the way. Don't get in close too often. Even though he was a good inside fighter wouldn't want him taking too many hooks and uppercuts on the way in. Rough him up like in 96, throw a few elbows, leave the head in and gradually break him down.

I can't not think of Bert Cooper rocking Holy and wonder what Tyson may have done if he hurt him though. I can't imagine Holy not biting down on the gumshield and trading if he gets hurt and then getting splattered. I change my mind about this one all the time but can't see it going the distance with one man going out on his shield. A real pick me with both winning if they fought a few times.

FTA69

Here, can we keep this thread for boxing technique and have a different one for Tyson?

Big Ears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w58KO09kfWs

If I could choose one fighter for someone to learn about technique from watching, it'd be Mike McCallum. So technically brilliant it's difficult to put into words.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w58KO09kfWs

If I could choose one fighter for someone to learn about technique from watching, it'd be Mike McCallum. So technically brilliant it's difficult to put into words.

Off the charts. So skilled, and so fit and tough as well.

FTA69

One of my coaches is Herol Graham who fought Mike, he said McCallum was the toughest fight he ever had.

Big Ears

FTA69 wrote: »

One of my coaches is Herol Graham who fought Mike, he said McCallum was the toughest fight he ever had.

Greatest British fighter to never win a World title. McCallum rates him as the best 'boxer' he's faced (he states James Toney as the best fighter overall he's faced): http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/168053-best-ive-faced-mike-mccallum

Duran & Hearns were kept away from McCallum, and for good reason as he'd of beaten both. He's the only fighter James Toney actually gives an kind of praise to (and he gives him quite a lot, really respects him).

FTA69

Herol's a character alright, teaches a very unorthodox style. He insists on laying back heavily on the back foot almost akin of the old bareknuckle fighters; he also advocates never turning a punch over, always using a vertical fist. The jab he tells people to use is nearly all arm and he has people dancing around the ring continuously. He's definitely in the minority of coaches I've seen anyway.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

Greatest British fighter to never win a World title. McCallum rates him as the best 'boxer' he's faced (he states James Toney as the best fighter overall he's faced): http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/168053-best-ive-faced-mike-mccallum

Duran & Hearns were kept away from McCallum, and for good reason as he'd of beaten both. He's the only fighter James Toney actually gives an kind of praise to (and he gives him quite a lot, really respects him).

I would have loved to have seen McCallum-Hearns. Tommy would have had his moments, but Mike breaks him mid to late rds for a KO. Too strong and heavy handed

megadodge

I really rate McCallum, but I think he has become slightly overrated in the last 10 years or so.

There is no doubt he was avoided by the real big names during his prime, mainly because he was too big a risk for too little reward, but when people talk about his technical excellence (and he was very good technically) they forget how he was clearly outboxed by Don Curry before landing a wild enough finishing left hook, then he lost on points to Sumbu Kalambay, being outboxed also.

I'm not so sure he'd have beaten Hearns. Nobody, and I really mean NOBODY ever outboxed a prime Tommy Hearns, so it would have had to be a stoppage. Now, that's not beyond the bounds of possibility, as Tommy's chin wasn't 100%, but it also wasn't quite as bad as people made it out to be. I'd fancy Tommy on points.

For what it's worth I thought McCallum was robbed in at least one of the first two Toney fights, probably both.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

For what it's worth I thought McCallum was robbed in at least one of the first two Toney fights, probably both.

We'd discussed this. No way can you call fight 1 a robbery. Toney deserved it. He landed the more clean and solid shots throughout the fight. Mike did very well, but he didn't win that fight. To make out a robbery in a very competitive and closely fought 12 rd fight is off the mark. Fight 2 I haven't seen in a long time, but again, it was fought very competitively.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

We'd discussed this. No way can you call fight 1 a robbery. Toney deserved it. He landed the more clean and solid shots throughout the fight. Mike did very well, but he didn't win that fight. To make out a robbery in a very competitive and closely fought 12 rd fight is off the mark. Fight 2 I haven't seen in a long time, but again, it was fought very competitively.

I admit it's been an awful long time since I've seen them (I watched them 'live' or morning after on TV), but I remember my whole thinking was that McCallum was doing all the working, in particular the jab, and Toney far more sporadic. If there were punch stats, I'd love to see them, cos I don't think Toney outlanded him at all.

Plus, it is James Toney we're talking about, and you're not exactly renowned for your unbiased analysis of his fights

Edit: Just googled both fights. The first had punch stats of McCallum landing 3 more punches, which is even, but in the second McCallum landed 100 more punches!! He threw more in both fights also.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19920830&id=03NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zCQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3390,7603992
http://articles.philly.com/1991-12-14/sports/25809754_1_mike-mccallum-james-toney-jackie-kallen

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

I admit it's been an awful long time since I've seen them (I watched them 'live' or morning after on TV), but I remember my whole thinking was that McCallum was doing all the working, in particular the jab, and Toney far more sporadic. If there were punch stats, I'd love to see them, cos I don't think Toney outlanded him at all.

Plus, it is James Toney we're talking about, and you're not exactly renowned for your unbiased analysis of his fights

Edit: Just googled both fights. The first had punch stats of McCallum landing 3 more punches, which is even, but in the second McCallum landed 100 more punches!! He threw more in both fights also.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19920830&id=03NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zCQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3390,7603992
http://articles.philly.com/1991-12-14/sports/25809754_1_mike-mccallum-james-toney-jackie-kallen

No doubt Mike landed as much, but Toney landed the more solid and clean shots in the first fight.

FTA69

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/4/30/5668082/maidana-mayweather-boxing-frame-by-frame-orchestrated-violence-video-analysis-technique

Great analysis of the evolution of Maidana as a fighter under Robert Garcia and how he is using jabs and feints to accompany his pressing and aggressive style. There's no denying he has become a far more rounded and impressive boxer over the past few years.

megadodge

pac_man wrote: »

Very few modern day boxers I see use the jab to the body and I don't understand why. It's a great punch that gives distance and offsets any
type of rhythm against a pressure fighter.

Very few boxers ever used that punch, not just modern day ones.

I'm not a fan of it at all. I think any decent counter puncher should be able to land the right hand over it and you're then in a vulnerable position when on the receiving end. I think that's the reason it's seldom used.

Deiseboy01

Its the upper cut id be worried about, you're sticking your head right out asking to have it knocked off

walshb

Personally I think the jab to the body is quite a difficult punch to counter against. The leaning in and stretching/dipping motion of the shot almost puts you out of harms way.

megadodge

pac_man wrote: »

Firstly it's hard to counter because the punch is unexpected and usually occurs after a faint or when it looks like your throwing a regular jab from eye contact or switching mid jab.

Secondly, I don't think you'd have significant leverage to throw a troublesome uppercut because you'd be connecting at waist level and even at that, the punch would be unnatural.The same applies to the right/left hand counter over the top especially when the fighter is square.

As I kinda mentioned earlier, the punch is so versatile, it can set things up, keep distance, disrupt rhythm or break down a fighter . Of course any punch can be countered, I just think you'd want to have really good timing to have any kinda success.

I really disagree. For starters if it was such a good punch how come so few fighters have ever used it consistently?

Your final paragraph is exactly how I'd describe the advantages of the jab to the head, except you could add in that a jab to the head can do consistent damage. I really struggle to see how a jab to the body sets things up or breaks down a fighter and as I said if a decent counter puncher throws and connects with a downward right hand while your in that vulnerable position (crouched and not perfectly balanced), you're gonna be hurt.

Plus if your opponent is standing in a correct side-on stance the body jab is going to be hard to land / slide off rather than land solidly.

FTA69

I agree with pac_man, and the jab to the body is a punch I use myself. Yes, it can be countered, but so can all punches and the jab to the body is one of the more difficult ones to counter due to the fact its often thrown from an awkward angle, the puncher steps slightly out of range and the fact the puncher has their arm extended protecting their chin.

Getting a hard jab in the solar plexus is no fun whatsoever, and while it isn't enough to seriously hurt, it certainly throws you off whatever you were doing in the first place. As pac said above, it also creates variety and uncertainty when fighting at range. If your opponent is guarding high then shoot one to his solar plexus, if he drops his guard to intercept it then feint, jab to the head and throw a right over it. Likewise if someone is telegraphing to gear up for a charge with heavy shots, a jab to the body can offset him while you move your feet.

I think it's a very useful tool.

megadodge

Well, I'd be prepared to take a jab to the body in order to land a counter right to the head. I know which one of the two is going to hurt more.

Punching downward is unnatural???
Wha???

As a person who is 6'2" and fought at light-middle, I punched downward quite a lot and it never felt unnatural. I can't imagine it's any different for most tall boxers.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

megadodge

I see what you mean about Mayweather/Mosely.

But also go to 2:53ish and you'll see perfectly what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK-obp_enCo

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

As a person who is 6'2" and fought at light-middle, I punched downward quite a lot and it never felt unnatural.
.

I knew the Hitman was on this site!:p

FTA69

Well, I'd be prepared to take a jab to the body in order to land a counter right to the head. I know which one of the two is going to hurt more.

If the person has their jab arm extended, is bent at the waist and is stepping to their right, you'll find it very hard to land that counter right.

As a person who is 6'2" and fought at light-middle, I punched downward quite a lot and it never felt unnatural. I can't imagine it's any different for most tall boxers.

Lanky boxers, the scourge of the amateurs.

megadodge

FTA69 wrote: »

If the person has their jab arm extended, is bent at the waist and is stepping to their right, you'll find it very hard to land that counter right.

I don't think it's that hard at all, especially as I have a memory of doing it (jab to the body) once in an important fight and getting instantly clipped. I remember thinking "ok, I won't be doing that again".

Lanky boxers, the scourge of the amateurs.

FTA69

http://www.hroarr.com/manuals/boxing-pugilism/Mendoza%20-%20The%20Art%20of%20Boxing.pdf

Here's a link to Daniel Mendoza's "The Art of Boxing"; it was the first book written about the scientific aspects of boxing and was published in the 1790s. Mendoza was an East End Jew who fought at middleweight but ended up winning the heavyweight championship with his advanced style that emphasised footwork, head-movement and avoiding punches.

FTA69

Here's a great video that examines the science behind "shifting" or switching stances mid-fight, it's something I've been incorporating myself over the past year with a decent amount of success.