Old School Boxing and Craft Lost to Time

[quote]Kirks wrote:
Could it be that the styles were figured out, as most sporting tactics are eventually, and have evolved for that reason?

London mentioned that Bhop is a modern fighter that incorporates the old style. Can someone point me in the direction of some other modern fighters that have taken old school boxing and made it work recently?

Also, if Freddy Roach calls Joe Louis ‘textbook boxing’, it seems crazy that it just isn’t really used anymore. From what little I’ve seen, I absolutely love his jab, and the impact it has in actually hurting and damaging his opponent.[/quote]

I hate to sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but again I have to use the example of the philly shell defense just because its so applicable to this topic. That defensive style has been around since by my estimation roughly the early 50s, with early similar iterations going back into the 30s. If boxing had truly evolved past it and figured it out, we wouldn’t see any successful examples of it today. But in the past 20 odd years or so: Mayweather, James Toney, Joan Guzman, Adrien Broner to name a few. All those guys are very hard to hit clean.

Toney is perhaps the most accurate re-incarnation of the style as the old fighters used it, and until Roy Jones picked him off, he was probably the baddest dude in the middleweight division during the early 90s. Of interest, Toney also stood with his head off center back in those days, and later when he moved up to cruiser and then eventually HW, under the tutelage of Roach, he still had superb defensive skills but he started standing more upright… and started getting hit with clubbing overhand rights more often (Samuel Peter fight is a perfect example)… one could argue that it was an effect of toney aging and his shitty stamina, but I also think his positioning has a lot to do with why he was getting hit with shots he never used to get hit with.

As for “new” old school fighters, B-hop, Andre Ward is a fantastic example, Dmitry Pirog - relatively unknown outside of russia, but came in as an underdog against new york’s Danny Jacobs and absolutely bewildered Jacobs from the opening bell.

I’ll have to rack my brain for some more, I know there is, just not from this current crop of fighters.

Just discovered Bernard Hopkins: Perfect Execution series on youtube. This will keep me busy for a while.

Please guys, more on this subject. I stand at 6 foot, but I have long arms for my height. I’d like to know how to fully incorporate these techniques and get the most out of my reach.

Sento are you anywhere near Pennsylvania?

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Interestingly, of the few modern fighters who do display tactics, techniques and methods that were widely present in old school fighters, commentators almost always attribute it to some supernatural ability of the fighter, never stopping to consider that something they are DOING is simply advantageous.

Two things are apparent to me now: Head positioning/weight distribution, and the loss of the jab as a weapon.

Many modern fighters lean over their front foot, sometimes even doing a little shimmy that amounts to not much at all, as if to add flair to their movement. This is particularly endemic in what Irish likes to deride as the “european” style of boxing :P. When you step back and objectively view it, the problem is almost glaringly obvious. By doing so, fighters reduce the distance between the most vulnerable part of their anatomy - the head - and the opponents weapons. Now defense has to be based on peak reflexes, which is not a good deal particularly as the fight drags on, or if the fighter isn’t particularly blessed in that department.

By putting the weight over the lead foot, the fighters balance is now compromised when doing anything but standing still, making him susceptible to being knocked down in tight exchanges, regardless of his ability to take a punch. The weight distribution also means he has to shift his weight back before he can actually move, should he need to create distance rapidly. The same also applies to punching, in that the weight must be shifted back to load up on punches. As opposed to a rear hip favoring distribution, in which the fighter’s power punches are effectively, always ready to fire.
[/quote]

So I’ve been meaning to answer this for a while, and here’s my thoughts - you’re mostly right.

You know I hate that European, John Duddy/Michael Katsidis/Mikkel Kessler style where you have a lot of weight over your front foot and your gloves up, and the word “footwork” is nearly as foreign as the idea of not blocking a punch with your face.

You’re right - that style limits movement and puts their face too close to their opponent’s power shots. Meeting a guy’s fist halfway is not my definition of intelligent, and it’s why many of those guys never end up having careers as good as they could have.

There’s a reason that years ago, when everyone was calling Joe Calslappy the best of all time, I said that I wanted him to face a slick black boxer from the ghetto who wouldn’t put his face out there like all the candle makers and cab drivers that Calslappy was fighting. They keep their weight back, they counterpunch, and they stick and move. And sure enough, Calzaghe had trouble with an old Bernard Hopkins and got knocked down by an ancient Jones.

Lennox Lewis used to do something very similar. Plus he had pterodactyl arms, so he could hit you from like halfway across the ring.

That being said, I don’t keep my lead hand low. I just don’t. And I never will.

[quote]
Secondly, many fighters today have fast, snappy jabs that look great, but it seems the use of the jab as a weapon in and of itself has become rare, the jab has been relegated to a tool that is used to set up other punches. Joe often seems to drive off the rear foot with the jab, almost like a fencer lunges with his sword. The result is a perceptible difference in effect. One fighter who still does this frequently today is Andre Ward, who coincidentally (or perhaps not coincidentally at all…) also shares many methods of the old school including favoring the rear hip and preferring to slip to the right in various levels as opposed to exhaustive whirling maneuvers to avoid danger. Ward is not a big puncher, but the thrusting jab he has used successfully to control fights against aggressive opponents, even men much bigger than him.

Well thats my piece. Looking forward to thoughts and analysis by other posters here![/quote]

I certainly agree - I always try to push off the back foot with the jab, which adds a shit-ton of explosiveness to an otherwise fairly weak punch. But I also work on the standard jab as well, the one that compensates with speed and torque, because I think you want different weapons for different moments. Ike Quartey never threw his jab with all his weight behind it, but it was still a nice punch. Lennox, on the other hand, ALWAYS pushed into it, and … well, the rest is history. Worked out pretty well for him.

I also love squaring up a bit when on the inside, like Mike Tyson, and throwing that jab almost as a straight right hand - that two-fisted attack is TRULY a lost art.

But guys like Louis ONLY threw that hard-ass stiff jab, and you might not be able to get away with only having that against some of the more slick guys nowadays. Although you might, if you’re Joe Louis, because it’s just as much about timing and knowing WHEN to throw what you wanna throw.

So even though it’s not the only jab I’d learn, I certainly agree that far too many fighters ignore it in favor of the more snappy version taught in the hood.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The jab alignment that you speak of is in fact the most advantageous one from a leverage and offensive standpoint. Done correctly it can be a very powerful punch and can have great stopping power. This is definitely something that many modern day boxers and boxing coaches don’t seem to do or teach.

Here is Rich Ryan demonstrating the power that such a punch can generate. Btw, Rich can throw a much harder jab if he winds it up, but obviously that eliminates the non telegraphic nature of the jab (which is one of it’s most useful qualities).

Will respond with more when I have more time.[/quote]

Not for nothing, but he pushed that punch a lot.

I’m not saying that the initial impact wasn’t solid - it was - but the guy fell over because the puncher pushed him.

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
Ezzard Charles would be a great fighter to study, and there is a reasonable amount of footage available, as well as the excellent analysis video done by that Dadi guy.

As far as why techniques have changed, and why few fighters adopt the old styles, I would personally attribute this almost exclusively to the modern gloves, that allow fighters to get away with boxing off the front foot, and allow them to be defensively less skilled. Back in the day, when they were basically fighting with bag gloves, the idea of taking a straight right on the gloves from your opponent would have been extremely undesirable. All those tiny bones being hit hard by another hard object is a recipe for damage. Because of this, they had to be more integrated defensively, minimising the amount of what you might call ‘direct contact defense’.

If you think about the old school posture (which modern fighters such as Bhop use very effectively), the weight is very much over the back foot, with a pronounced bend in the back leg. This has a couple of effects, most noticably that it pulls the lead shoulder around, and hides the vulnerable parts of the jaw behind the lead shoulder. It also has a similar effect to suspension in a car, in that it is like being on a slightly softer spring, allowing you to move more in the direction of the punch on contact - essentially, there is more give. Because this is a fundamentally more defensive posture, and because blocking defense is less desirable with small gloves, it becomes prudent to carry the lead hand lower, in a more fencing style stance. This allows greater visibility, is more comfortable for shoulder rolling (and stops limbs getting tangled), and as has already been covered, greater opportunity to use the jab as an untelegraphed, concussive punch.

Another feature of the old time fighters that they do far more effectively than modern fighters is economy of movement through footwork. If you watch some of the old school guys, they move around far less than most modern fighters, and make extremely effective use of range. This is an effect of being in the old school stance - it doesn’t make for such a mobile fighter. That stance is brilliant for slipping, ducking, rolling, changing angles, and playing with distance, but it is not an effective stance for running away, or spending 12 rounds prancing around the outside of the ring.

It also allows for your feet to be in range, whilst your target area is out of range, as you can push forward off the back foot to give a lead hand that was out of range the extra few inches it needs to find the target, whilst immediately allowing you to push back of the lead foot to take your target area back out of your opponent’s range. [/quote]

Great post. Truly

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So I’ve been meaning to answer this for a while, and here’s my thoughts - you’re mostly right.

You know I hate that European, John Duddy/Michael Katsidis/Mikkel Kessler style where you have a lot of weight over your front foot and your gloves up, and the word “footwork” is nearly as foreign as the idea of not blocking a punch with your face.

You’re right - that style limits movement and puts their face too close to their opponent’s power shots. Meeting a guy’s fist halfway is not my definition of intelligent, and it’s why many of those guys never end up having careers as good as they could have.

There’s a reason that years ago, when everyone was calling Joe Calslappy the best of all time, I said that I wanted him to face a slick black boxer from the ghetto who wouldn’t put his face out there like all the candle makers and cab drivers that Calslappy was fighting. They keep their weight back, they counterpunch, and they stick and move. And sure enough, Calzaghe had trouble with an old Bernard Hopkins and got knocked down by an ancient Jones.
[/quote]

Regarding the european style of boxing, I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade - I think a lot of it is due to the nature of boxing gyms in places like the UK and Australia for young kids almost always being run out of the back of an football or rugby club, and almost always being “taught” by a footballer who had a few fights when he was young. Its not just not an ingrained part of the culture the way it is in the central or southern americas

So from the root to the fruit, you’re just not getting a really firm understanding of the game beyond “jab and keep your hands up”. The first time many of these guys will actually step into a dedicated boxing gym with dedicated trainers is when they make olympic teams or turn professional.

And yeah, Calzone was always hard to watch. He LOOKS like a dude who should lose. Its disturbs the mind to see him win so often. I think he might be one of the few examples of a fighter who has carried over an inherently amateur style into the pro ranks and somehow became a success with it.

LMAO at pterodactyl arms. I always thought Lennox had a really great jab. In fact I always though Lennox didn’t get the respect he deserved. Pity about the glass jaw though.

I’m certainly not opposed to having both. Like I said earlier, I think Andre Ward might be one of the finest examples of a marriage between old school and new school philosophies.

Thank you Irish, lovely stuff from you too - always learn something from your analysis posts.

Davo, I think you’re right for the most part mate, with some honourable exceptions. It seems as though a lot of places over here you’re pretty much learning just by going in and fighting. As long as you jab and hold both hands high, you’ll be praised by the coach, and you’ll not get too badly beaten up at lower levels - it seems like a win-win.

Calzaghe was tough as an old coffin nail, but as you say, fought with an amateur style. I don’t think you should be able to win fights like that. It may be part of the reason that you see less of the old school stuff now - it doesn’t actually favour boxing against guys who run around a lot and box in that Olympic style of throwing a load of shit pitty pat punches from all angles, at least not when the scoring is less than stringent. It necessarily calls for a lower volume of punches, and places more emphasis on defence as a scoring attribute (as it should be but so often isn’t under modern scoring).

I like the Rocky Marciano style. Hit em hard!!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The jab alignment that you speak of is in fact the most advantageous one from a leverage and offensive standpoint. Done correctly it can be a very powerful punch and can have great stopping power. This is definitely something that many modern day boxers and boxing coaches don’t seem to do or teach.

Here is Rich Ryan demonstrating the power that such a punch can generate. Btw, Rich can throw a much harder jab if he winds it up, but obviously that eliminates the non telegraphic nature of the jab (which is one of it’s most useful qualities).

Will respond with more when I have more time.[/quote]

Not for nothing, but he pushed that punch a lot.

I’m not saying that the initial impact wasn’t solid - it was - but the guy fell over because the puncher pushed him.[/quote]

He followed through, which can look like a push if you aren’t on the other side of the punch. True Power punches are always going to have more follow through and resemble pushes to a degree, the difference is the velocity that the punch is traveling (which is actually the only difference between a punch and a push anyhow). Also, had the punch been directed at a less massive target (like a person’s head rather than their center of mass), you would have seen much less decrease in the punch’s velocity (since it would meet with less resistance). Such a punch will cause a severe displacement of the skull, which in turn will cause considerable concussive forces to the brain/KO.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The jab alignment that you speak of is in fact the most advantageous one from a leverage and offensive standpoint. Done correctly it can be a very powerful punch and can have great stopping power. This is definitely something that many modern day boxers and boxing coaches don’t seem to do or teach.

Here is Rich Ryan demonstrating the power that such a punch can generate. Btw, Rich can throw a much harder jab if he winds it up, but obviously that eliminates the non telegraphic nature of the jab (which is one of it’s most useful qualities).

Will respond with more when I have more time.[/quote]

Not for nothing, but he pushed that punch a lot.

I’m not saying that the initial impact wasn’t solid - it was - but the guy fell over because the puncher pushed him.[/quote]

He followed through, which can look like a push if you aren’t on the other side of the punch. True Power punches are always going to have more follow through and resemble pushes to a degree, the difference is the velocity that the punch is traveling (which is actually the only difference between a punch and a push anyhow). Also, had the punch been directed at a less massive target (like a person’s head rather than their center of mass), you would have seen much less decrease in the punch’s velocity (since it would meet with less resistance). Such a punch will cause a severe displacement of the skull, which in turn will cause considerable concussive forces to the brain/KO. [/quote]

If you say so man.

[quote]StevenF wrote:
I like the Rocky Marciano style. Hit em hard!![/quote]

I tell you what man - I know you were just joking, but I’m always impressed by fighters with awkward-as-fuck styles who somehow make it work. I’m thinking of guys like Marciano or Maidana or Foreman, who you watch fight and you think to yourself, “These guys have no fucking clue what they’re doing” … and then BOOM! They get a KO victory on a weird-ass looping right hand or an uppercut you thought they were totally out of position to throw.

It takes a special kind of trainer to realize early on that the fighter isn’t actually shitty at boxing - they just have weird movement patterns that are actually helping them out.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The jab alignment that you speak of is in fact the most advantageous one from a leverage and offensive standpoint. Done correctly it can be a very powerful punch and can have great stopping power. This is definitely something that many modern day boxers and boxing coaches don’t seem to do or teach.

Here is Rich Ryan demonstrating the power that such a punch can generate. Btw, Rich can throw a much harder jab if he winds it up, but obviously that eliminates the non telegraphic nature of the jab (which is one of it’s most useful qualities).

Will respond with more when I have more time.[/quote]

Not for nothing, but he pushed that punch a lot.

I’m not saying that the initial impact wasn’t solid - it was - but the guy fell over because the puncher pushed him.[/quote]

He followed through, which can look like a push if you aren’t on the other side of the punch. True Power punches are always going to have more follow through and resemble pushes to a degree, the difference is the velocity that the punch is traveling (which is actually the only difference between a punch and a push anyhow). Also, had the punch been directed at a less massive target (like a person’s head rather than their center of mass), you would have seen much less decrease in the punch’s velocity (since it would meet with less resistance). Such a punch will cause a severe displacement of the skull, which in turn will cause considerable concussive forces to the brain/KO. [/quote]

If you say so man.[/quote]

Here, I’ll explain it in more detail:

Striking is about impact; the difference between a “push” and a “punch” is impact (this is also the difference between a “slap” and an effective “punch”). Impact is simply a matter of the amount of kinetic energy generated into the target and effective bracing so that the puncher (same applies to kicks, knees, elbows, headbutts, or any type of strike) does not get driven backwards by the equal and opposite force that they encounter upon impact (some people call this “rebound”) and thus not transfer all of that kinetic energy into the target.

Kinetic energy is simply a matter of the amount of mass that is moving into the target multiplied by the speed/velocity with which it is moving. This is why a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building will “weigh” (which is a measure of force) the same amount as a school bus, but be concentrated into a very small surface area thus actually penetrating the asphalt below (or killing a person if it hit them in the head, which is why they installed nets to prevent this). This also explains why a heavyweight boxers’ jab will feel like a lightweights power punches; why howitzers, cannon balls, and other heavy artillery is preferable to damaging structures than smaller artillery; and why the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was estimated to have hit the earth with one billion times the force of the atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima.

A “push” is just a transfer of mass into an object with very little velocity, but lots of leverage and torque. In reality the two movements are identical, the only real difference that separates them is the velocity at which they are moving. Both utilize the same muscles (and are equally reliant on the strength of the muscles involved), both should follow the same path to the target, everything is the same except the velocity.

The second factor necessary for effective transfer of mass is leverage/effective bracing so that the “rebound” does not displace the object rather than the target (the more massive the target the more important this becomes). This is where understanding of biomechanics and physics really pay off and where the guard position that Loius (and Ryan in the video I posted) really makes a difference in the “stopping power” of the jab/“lead hand jolt” as Dempsey called it.

So again, the more mass the puncher can transfer into the target, the faster they can do it, and the better braced/better leverage they have while doing it, the more impact/kinetic energy will be applied to the target. Since that kinetic energy is focused into a relatively small surface area (the knuckles of the hand) the result is a “penetration” into and through the target (causing internal trauma). If you want another analogy , then think of a jouster on a horse with his/her lance. The combined mass of the horse and jouster multiplied by the speed/velocity at which they are traveling focused into the relatively small surface area of the lance (which is braced against the jouster’s body) make for the impact experienced by the other jouster (which would easily kill someone who was not in a suit of plate armor).

And again, we are talking about true “Power” punches here, you can obviously throw very fast, loose, “speed” or “economy” punches which have very little to moderate levels of penetration, which is what you see most people, professional boxers included, most of the time where you won’t see much decrease or follow through on the punches (even when they throw their “power” punches). And truth be told this makes lots of sense since less committed punches will leave you less open to counter attacks should you miss, will usually be less telegraphic, expend less energy, and have less risk for damaging your hands should you hit something hard like an opponent’s skull or elbow. Again though, if you learn how to throw true “Power” punches, you will make even your “speed” or “economy” punches weapons to be respected.

With the weight over the front foot vs back foot, what weight distribution should I be going with if I want more weight over the back ala hopkins?

60/40, 70/30, 55/45?

[quote]Kirks wrote:
With the weight over the front foot vs back foot, what weight distribution should I be going with if I want more weight over the back ala hopkins?

60/40, 70/30, 55/45?[/quote]

60/40 sounds about right.

you want it just enough so that the rear hip is always “loaded” so to speak, there should be a slight bend in the back leg, and the head should naturally sink/align over the rear hip.

vs

Bernard is a little more upright and the bend isn’t as exaggerated as Joe’s but the basic stance is almost the same.