Boxing's Ten Commandments (from a technical perspective)

[McGrain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

How would a ten commandments of boxing read? What are the ten hardest technical rules for success in boxing? Raise one or ten or any number in between, but no more.

If you're feeling extra brave:

Give an example of a fighter who made a success of boxing inspite of consistantly breaking this rule, and another fighter who holds your commandment as true in the proof of his sticking to it firmly.

[itrymariti]

1. Keep your chin down

Confirmation: Bernard Hopkins

Falsification: Muhammad Ali

[Sweet Pea]

Now this is an interesting idea. I'll get back to you.

[KTFO]

2. Fight as dirty as possible.

Confirmation: Sandy Saddler

Falsification: Andrew Golota

[PowerPuncher]

1. Learn how to throw every 1 of the punches correctly, compactly and straight, learn how to powerpunch. Most champions havent mastered this

[Shake]

Keep your chin tucked in.
Don't back away in a straight line.
Keep your right hand up.
Don't cross your feet.

[PowerPuncher]

Keep your chin tucked in.
Don't back away in a straight line.
Keep your right hand up.
Don't cross your feet.

All technical rules, backing up in straight lines is the most forgivable though and practised by most champions in history

[Beau Geste]

1. Kill the body and the head will follow - Body punching
2. Step into your jab
3. Throw straight punches, do not loop your punches

[GPater11093]

1. Punch the other guy

Guys who didnt follow this: Johnny nelson

[Tin_Ribs]

1. Punch the other guy

Guys who didnt follow this: Johnny nelson

You bitch.

[GPater11093]

You bitch.

:lol::lol:

this is interesting though i will be back with a serious one

[McGrain]

Everyone who puts a smart answer in this thread is going on my list.

<<<<Moses not fucking amused.

[Tin_Ribs]

Good thread is this, I'll have to ponder a while.......

[Bokaj]

Don't be stationary when in-fighting. Constantly shift position while staying close in order to get new angles for your blows.

Duran and Frazier were good at this.


Move your upper-body, use shoulder rolls as well as blocking with glows and forearms.

Moore, Whitaker, Toney and Hopkins were proponents of this style. DLH and Foreman less so (Foreman much, much less so:smoke.)


Don't throw uppercuts on the outside.

Good pupil: Louis
Bad pupil: Ali

[Robot16]

Don't be stationary when in-fighting. Constantly shift position while staying close in order to get new angles for your blows.

Duran and Frazier were good at this.


Move your upper-body, use shoulder rolls as well as blocking with glows and forearms.

Moore, Whitaker, Toney and Hopkins were proponents of this style. DLH and Foreman less so (Foreman much, much less so:smoke.)


Don't throw uppercuts on the outside.

Good pupil: Louis
Bad pupil: Ali

Do not drop your guard and stand there after landing on your opponoent,
Nate Campbell v Robbie Peden 1:patsch

[JohnThomas1]

Keep your hands up

Ali, Jones, Hearns

Starling, Tyson, Arguello

[PetethePrince]

1) Defense should be the root of all offensive. Whether it be through great upper body movement, protecting yourself with your guard, or using your legs, or perhaps head movement. Any style or method that keeps you out of harms way from punches will stem offense back at your opponent. This isn't a rule for just the counter-punchers, and aggressive fighters can counter punch too. And using defense, just for the sake of alluding and confusing your opponent EVEN if he isn't throwing punches is still a great thing. This rule, stems with the rule of all RULES to PROTECT YOURSELF AT ALL TIMES. Defense is necessity, and a great weapon of choice.

Confirmation: Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, Jack Johnson, James Toney, and Floyd Mayweather.

Falsification: George Foreman

2) Mindfulness and focus is the key to success in the squared circle. Similarly to life, mindfulness and focus are very important in the ring. Don't fall for traps, and be aware of your surroundings. Try to notice patterns, or the predictable nature of your opponents move and attack. This isn't a law of boxers, but a law for great boxing success. Mindfulness and focus can relate to the power of the will and heart. If you're heart and will are there, be sure your mind be too.

Confirmation: Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Jersey Joe Walcott, Willie Pep.

Falsification: George Foreman, Michael Moorer

3) Be unpredictable. Even the smartest and greatest of fighters can fall into the lure of being predictable. Try to vary your attack. Vary your movement, vary your combination. Don't be a movement of repetition. Be the movement of unpredictability.

Confirmation: Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson

Falsification: Joe Frazier, David Tua.

I'm trying to sound wordy, pretentious, and biblical if you haven't notice. I should really think this and maybe ponder more and come back.

*Edit* Since this is a technical perspective. I'm being far too vague and not confining it to technical boxing enough. I shall re-think some more.

[TonyCamonte]

1 – Thou shall always keep your balance.
2 – Thou shall keep your chin down.
3 – Thou shall keep your hands up.
4 – Thou shall move your head.
5 – Thou shall work behind your jab.
6 – Thou shall step with every punch.
7 – Thou shall turn your punches over.
8 – Thou shall work both body and head.
9 – Thou shall double up your punches.
10 – Thou shall “set up” your punches.

Not all of them are purely technical, though…

And off the top of my head:
(Correct me if I’m wrong)

1
Confirmation: Jersey Joe Walcott
Falsification: Naseem Hamed

2
Confirmation: James Toney
Falsification: Muhammad Ali

3
Confirmation: Alexis Arguello
Falsification: Muhammad Ali

4
Confirmation: Mike Tyson
Falsification: Ricky Hatton

5
Confirmation: Winky Wright
Falsification: Roy Jones Jr.

6
Confirmation: Bernard Hopkins
Falsification: Wladimir Klitschko

7
Confirmation: Alexis Arguello
Falsification: Joe Calzaghe?

8
Confirmation: Julio Cesar Chavez
Falsification: ?

9
Confirmation: Muhammad Ali
Falsification: George Foreman

10
Confirmation: Alexis Arguello
Falsification: Roy Jones Jr.

[PetethePrince]

1 – Thou shall always keep your balance.
2 – Thou shall keep your chin down.
3 – Thou shall keep your hands up.
4 – Thou shall move your head.
5 – Thou shall work behind your jab.
6 – Thou shall step with every punch.
7 – Thou shall turn your punches over.
8 – Thou shall work both body and head.
9 – Thou shall double up your punches.
10 – Thou shall “set up” your punches.

Not all of them are purely technical, though…

And off the top of my head:
(Correct me if I’m wrong)

1
Confirmation: Jersey Joe Walcott
Falsification: Naseem Hamed

2
Confirmation: James Toney
Falsification: Muhammad Ali

3
Confirmation: Alexis Arguello
Falsification: Muhammad Ali

4
Confirmation: Mike Tyson
Falsification: Ricky Hatton

5
Confirmation: Winky Wright
Falsification: Roy Jones Jr.

6
Confirmation: Bernard Hopkins
Falsification: Wladimir Klitschko

7
Confirmation: Alexis Arguello
Falsification: Joe Calzaghe?

8
Confirmation: Julio Cesar Chavez
Falsification: ?

9
Confirmation: Muhammad Ali
Falsification: George Foreman

10
Confirmation: Alexis Arguello
Falsification: Roy Jones Jr.

Good list man.

8. can be Ali. He only really worked the body in the Cleveland Williams fight.

[Axl_Nose]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

How would a ten commandments of boxing read? What are the ten hardest technical rules for success in boxing? Raise one or ten or any number in between, but no more.

If you're feeling extra brave:

Give an example of a fighter who made a success of boxing inspite of consistantly breaking this rule, and another fighter who holds your commandment as true in the proof of his sticking to it firmly.

Love the Charlton Heston post, an absoluteky sensational opening .. If a fighter can take a good punch and he has a decent jab and a good uppercut then he cant go far wrong ..... The 2 most important punches in boxing are the jab and uppercut and if you can take a decent shot then you'll be a threat .. Boxing is all about the Jab ..

[Longhhorn71]

Against southpaws, ......circle to your left, use right hands & left hooks, and don't forget to jab. If you can back the southpaw up...even more the better.

[Bioyhh]

Good list man.

8. can be Ali. He only really worked the body in the Cleveland Williams fight.

No. 8 might also be Cooney. Strangely, given the height advantage he had over most of his opponents, Cooney spent a lot of time working the body and neglecting to move up the ladder. I think that cost him dearly in the Holmes fight.

This is a good list, and it appears that Arguello was the most pious fighter, as he's the exemplar for 3 of the 10 commandments. Just for variety's sake one might substitute Danny Lopez as the exemplar for No. 7.

[PetethePrince]

No. 8 might also be Cooney. Strangely, given the height advantage he had over most of his opponents, Cooney spent a lot of time working the body and neglecting to move up the ladder. I think that cost him dearly in the Holmes fight.

This is a good list, and it appears that Arguello was the most pious fighter, as he's the exemplar for 3 of the 10 commandments. Just for variety's sake one might substitute Danny Lopez as the exemplar for No. 7.

I think Cooney went to the head more then Ali went to the body.

[GPater11093]

1. You should always be lookign to throw combinations and avoid single shots.

Example: Arguello, Pep, Whittaker, Duran, Robinson, Leonard etc....

Non example: Jones Jr ?????


2. The jab should be the most important punch

Example: Whittaker, Leonard, Robinson, Ali, Pep, Arguello, etc....

Non Example: Jones Jr ????

Im not meaning to pick on Roy Jones but i genuinly cant find any other examples of the top of my head

[Popkins]

1. You should always be lookign to throw combinations and avoid single shots.

Example: Arguello, Pep, Whittaker, Duran, Robinson, Leonard etc....

Non example: Jones Jr ?????


2. The jab should be the most important punch

Example: Whittaker, Leonard, Robinson, Ali, Pep, Arguello, etc....

Non Example: Jones Jr ????

Im not meaning to pick on Roy Jones but i genuinly cant find any other examples of the top of my head

For number 1 - Mayweather at welterweight

For number 2 - Manny Pacquiao

[GPater11093]

For number 1 - Mayweather at welterweight

For number 2 - Manny Pacquiao

thanks give Roy Jones some company

[Popkins]

Thou shalt not get drawn into firefights with younger, bigger, fresher, stronger opponents.

Confirmation: Julian Jackson (vs Gerald McClellan)

Falsification: Duran (vs Moore and Barkley)

[GPater11093]

3. Emphasis should be placed on defence and offence equally

Example: Duran, Whittaker, Napoles, Benitez,

Non-Example: LaMotta, Greb, Robinson

[McGrain]

OK i'll have a spin.


OFFENCE

1 - Thou Shalt Stay On Balance.

It's interesting to me that there's disagreement - even now - about to what degree a fighter should sacrifice balance in favour of defence, or rather ease of balance. Basically this boils down to how square a fighter should stand behind his lead foot, just to stress the difference between standing square, which is about footwork/position, and coming square, which is about shifting out of the traditionally taught "side on" presentation of the fighter to the opponent showing the smaller target. My thoughts have always been that a fighters individual stance should be defined by styles (Calzaghe, Frazier) or the fighter's individual attribute, balance. A naturally well balanced fighter can afford to present the smallest target possible (Ali, Hopkins) whereas a fighter that is less "naturally" balanced can come a little squarer in order to maintain balance (Sam Peter). I'd treat both styles equally for that reason, I don't see one as superior to the other, although a fighter could be "mis-trained".

Key to balance is the ability to transfer the weight of a punch. The difference between an arm-punch and 100% lethal torque can be weight-transfer on balance. The past-master in this department, that department is Bernard Hopkins.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One of the reasons Hopkins-Calzaghe was so fascinating was that these were two opposites in terms of balacne. Hopkins is oen of the most perfectly balanced fighters in history, Calzaghe is horribly balanced. Joe is able to harass better balanced fighters because he doesn't get "set" in the traditional way, he launches sudden attacks from traditionally impossible angles and positions and explosiveness. It makes it very hard for the "traditional fighter (Hopkins) to remain on balance. But Hopkisn remains on balance througout this fight.

For a fighter known primarily for his defence, Hopkins is always ready to transfer his weight and punch properly from the balanced position, in spite of Joe's (perfect) tactic to keep Hopkins on the move and off balance. Traditional thinking holds that a fighter moving away loses power. Here's a fighter who embraces those traditions without losing the power. There are examples all over the above linked film. A good one is from around 3.25. Hopkins has been on the move throughout, he's movin away from his man and to his right. Because he is moving often Hokins is breaking up his steps into frequent very very small moves (which cost him, probably, but is still technically correct) making sure that his balance is "on" for every single one of them, and so is able to bring across a non-traditional arced right hand when the opportunity presents itself, inspite of the fact that this punch requires him to transfer his balance all the way across against a much faster, younger fighter who is in a traditional position of superior balance (moving forwards in small incriments) without placing himself in serious danger. His balance enhances his speed, explosiveness, defence, accuracy and power.


Later in the fight, at the end of seven, Calzaghe is moving forwards very badly balanced throwing slapping punches. Hopkins does not panic despite being swarmed, stays on balance and throws a clipping right hand, best seen here at 4:35:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This fight was seen as controversial. People have scored it quite wide both ways. I had it close for Calzaghe. Whatever the truth, the above clip captures the essence of the fight. Calzaghe throws many seemingly less hurtful punches and Hopkins throws a single punch that appears more affective. The slow motion may tell another story, but the judges do not have access to slow motion replays. Whatever your own feelings about this fight I think the reason it has become so debatable was specifically Bernard's wonderful balance. He's able to flip a stylistic dis-advantage and turn it to his advantage based upon this single attribute.

There's a reason it would be #1 on my offence list.

[McGrain]

Thou shalt not get drawn into firefights with younger, bigger, fresher, stronger opponents.)

Tactical/mental not technical ;)

[Flea Man]

The jab is your most important punch

[GPater11093]

The jab is your most important punch

i should have added 'and treated in that way.'

also McGrain that was excellant, balance is the most important thing in boxing.

[johnmaff36]

good footwork is as important as anything else. Without it you are limiting what you can do

[Popkins]

Tactical/mental not technical ;)

:lol: Revise it to: Thou shalt have the technique and the skill to stand in the eye of the storm with younger, fresher, bigger, stronger opponents, and triumph.

[Popkins]

OK i'll have a spin.


OFFENCE

1 - Thou Shalt Stay On Balance.

It's interesting to me that there's disagreement - even now - about to what degree a fighter should sacrifice balance in favour of defence, or rather ease of balance. Basically this boils down to how square a fighter should stand behind his lead foot, just to stress the difference between standing square, which is about footwork/position, and coming square, which is about shifting out of the traditionally taught "side on" presentation of the fighter to the opponent showing the smaller target. My thoughts have always been that a fighters individual stance should be defined by styles (Calzaghe, Frazier) or the fighter's individual attribute, balance. A naturally well balanced fighter can afford to present the smallest target possible (Ali, Hopkins) whereas a fighter that is less "naturally" balanced can come a little squarer in order to maintain balance (Sam Peter). I'd treat both styles equally for that reason, I don't see one as superior to the other, although a fighter could be "mis-trained".

Key to balance is the ability to transfer the weight of a punch. The difference between an arm-punch and 100% lethal torque can be weight-transfer on balance. The past-master in this department, that department is Bernard Hopkins.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One of the reasons Hopkins-Calzaghe was so fascinating was that these were two opposites in terms of balacne. Hopkins is oen of the most perfectly balanced fighters in history, Calzaghe is horribly balanced. Joe is able to harass better balanced fighters because he doesn't get "set" in the traditional way, he launches sudden attacks from traditionally impossible angles and positions and explosiveness. It makes it very hard for the "traditional fighter (Hopkins) to remain on balance. But Hopkisn remains on balance througout this fight.

For a fighter known primarily for his defence, Hopkins is always ready to transfer his weight and punch properly from the balanced position, in spite of Joe's (perfect) tactic to keep Hopkins on the move and off balance. Traditional thinking holds that a fighter moving away loses power. Here's a fighter who embraces those traditions without losing the power. There are examples all over the above linked film. A good one is from around 3.25. Hopkins has been on the move throughout, he's movin away from his man and to his right. Because he is moving often Hokins is breaking up his steps into frequent very very small moves (which cost him, probably, but is still technically correct) making sure that his balance is "on" for every single one of them, and so is able to bring across a non-traditional arced right hand when the opportunity presents itself, inspite of the fact that this punch requires him to transfer his balance all the way across against a much faster, younger fighter who is in a traditional position of superior balance (moving forwards in small incriments) without placing himself in serious danger. His balance enhances his speed, explosiveness, defence, accuracy and power.


Later in the fight, at the end of seven, Calzaghe is moving forwards very badly balanced throwing slapping punches. Hopkins does not panic despite being swarmed, stays on balance and throws a clipping right hand, best seen here at 4:35:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This fight was seen as controversial. People have scored it quite wide both ways. I had it close for Calzaghe. Whatever the truth, the above clip captures the essence of the fight. Calzaghe throws many seemingly less hurtful punches and Hopkins throws a single punch that appears more affective. The slow motion may tell another story, but the judges do not have access to slow motion replays. Whatever your own feelings about this fight I think the reason it has become so debatable was specifically Bernard's wonderful balance. He's able to flip a stylistic dis-advantage and turn it to his advantage based upon this single attribute.


There's a reason it would be #1 on my offence list.


Fantastic post. I strongly disagree that Calzaghe won the fight, but a fascinating post nonetheless :happy

[JimmyShimmy]

Thou shall claim the victor was on 'roids if thy loses.

[China_hand_Joe]

Calzaghe fought a horrible fight against Hopkins, maybe the right hand in the first made him do that. On off day against a wonderful fighter and he still got away with it, an extremely impressive win in that context.

[JimmyShimmy]

Calzaghe fought a horrible fight against Hopkins, maybe the right hand in the first made him do that. On off day against a wonderful fighter and he still got away with it, an extremely impressive win in that context.

The fight was horrible, awful. It was there for Hopkins but that version of ol' Hoppy was too circumspect to pull it out of the bag like he would have done a good 5/6 years back.

Hopkins had this real bad habit later on of casually plucking at his foe and then thinking he was miles ahead.

[ChrisPontius]

Let's not forget that Calzaghe, at 36, wasn't exactly young either. Especially if you consider that he has a young man's style.

[red cobra]

Calzaghe had a high velocity, Maxie Rosenbloom type of style. He can be criticised from dusk till dawn for slapping and throwing tons of light seemingly inconsequential slapping type punches, but just like Slapsie Maxie, that was his style and he used it to perfection, perhaps because brittle hands prevented him from throwing harder punches. Maybe Rosenbloom wouldn't be so popular today because of his propensity to slap, but he's at least given his props in "classic" type forums for his ring accomplishments, and what makes him any different from Joe Calzaghe, who won his fights...all of them...basically in the same way.

[Robot16]

The fight was horrible, awful. It was there for Hopkins but that version of ol' Hoppy was too circumspect to pull it out of the bag like he would have done a good 5/6 years back.

Hopkins had this real bad habit later on of casually plucking at his foe and then thinking he was miles ahead.

Imo a key moment in the fight was when hopkins was trying to get a hand off the ref/ well not a hand but help or time off.
This from a fighter who has good mind games, shows toughness, fought on against echols 2.
This imo is a big thing in the fight.

Also i felt hopkins did edge it, but also could go either way.

I had $$ on Calzaghe:D

[Popkins]

Let's not forget that Calzaghe, at 36, wasn't exactly young either. Especially if you consider that he has a young man's style.

I disagree with this. Calzaghe of 06-07 was the best JC ever IMO. He could still fight at a rapid pace for 12 rounds at that age as proved against Lacy, Bika and Kessler, so his style and effectiveness had not been compromised by then. I look at the young Calzaghe and see a guy who went life and death with Robin Reid, then look at the tail-end Calzaghe, who adjusted mid-fight to defeat Kessler. The street-smarts, composure, experience, and strength of mind and body gained from 97-06/7 had clearly benefitted Calzaghe immensely. If 2007 Kessler had been in the ring with the young Calzaghe instead of Reid, Kessler was having the full 12 the way he had the first 6 with 2007 Calzaghe, and winning that fight.

[Flea Man]

OK i'll have a spin.


OFFENCE

1 - Thou Shalt Stay On Balance.

It's interesting to me that there's disagreement - even now - about to what degree a fighter should sacrifice balance in favour of defence, or rather ease of balance. Basically this boils down to how square a fighter should stand behind his lead foot, just to stress the difference between standing square, which is about footwork/position, and coming square, which is about shifting out of the traditionally taught "side on" presentation of the fighter to the opponent showing the smaller target. My thoughts have always been that a fighters individual stance should be defined by styles (Calzaghe, Frazier) or the fighter's individual attribute, balance. A naturally well balanced fighter can afford to present the smallest target possible (Ali, Hopkins) whereas a fighter that is less "naturally" balanced can come a little squarer in order to maintain balance (Sam Peter). I'd treat both styles equally for that reason, I don't see one as superior to the other, although a fighter could be "mis-trained".

Key to balance is the ability to transfer the weight of a punch. The difference between an arm-punch and 100% lethal torque can be weight-transfer on balance. The past-master in this department, that department is Bernard Hopkins.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One of the reasons Hopkins-Calzaghe was so fascinating was that these were two opposites in terms of balacne. Hopkins is oen of the most perfectly balanced fighters in history, Calzaghe is horribly balanced. Joe is able to harass better balanced fighters because he doesn't get "set" in the traditional way, he launches sudden attacks from traditionally impossible angles and positions and explosiveness. It makes it very hard for the "traditional fighter (Hopkins) to remain on balance. But Hopkisn remains on balance througout this fight.

For a fighter known primarily for his defence, Hopkins is always ready to transfer his weight and punch properly from the balanced position, in spite of Joe's (perfect) tactic to keep Hopkins on the move and off balance. Traditional thinking holds that a fighter moving away loses power. Here's a fighter who embraces those traditions without losing the power. There are examples all over the above linked film. A good one is from around 3.25. Hopkins has been on the move throughout, he's movin away from his man and to his right. Because he is moving often Hokins is breaking up his steps into frequent very very small moves (which cost him, probably, but is still technically correct) making sure that his balance is "on" for every single one of them, and so is able to bring across a non-traditional arced right hand when the opportunity presents itself, inspite of the fact that this punch requires him to transfer his balance all the way across against a much faster, younger fighter who is in a traditional position of superior balance (moving forwards in small incriments) without placing himself in serious danger. His balance enhances his speed, explosiveness, defence, accuracy and power.


Later in the fight, at the end of seven, Calzaghe is moving forwards very badly balanced throwing slapping punches. Hopkins does not panic despite being swarmed, stays on balance and throws a clipping right hand, best seen here at 4:35:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This fight was seen as controversial. People have scored it quite wide both ways. I had it close for Calzaghe. Whatever the truth, the above clip captures the essence of the fight. Calzaghe throws many seemingly less hurtful punches and Hopkins throws a single punch that appears more affective. The slow motion may tell another story, but the judges do not have access to slow motion replays. Whatever your own feelings about this fight I think the reason it has become so debatable was specifically Bernard's wonderful balance. He's able to flip a stylistic dis-advantage and turn it to his advantage based upon this single attribute.


There's a reason it would be #1 on my offence list.


A very enjoyable read, and a good case proven well:good

[Flea Man]

I disagree with this. Calzaghe of 06-07 was the best JC ever IMO. He could still fight at a rapid pace for 12 rounds at that age as proved against Lacy, Bika and Kessler, so his style and effectiveness had not been compromised by then. I look at the young Calzaghe and see a guy who went life and death with Robin Reid, then look at the tail-end Calzaghe, who adjusted mid-fight to defeat Kessler. The street-smarts, composure, experience, and strength of mind and body gained from 97-06/7 had clearly benefitted Calzaghe immensely. If 2007 Kessler had been in the ring with the young Calzaghe instead of Reid, Kessler was having the full 12 the way he had the first 6 with 2007 Calzaghe, and winning that fight.

Good post, and I agree. That Calzaghe would be the one best equipped to beat Prime Jones IMO (also I feel he would come up short)

Calzaghe was a fighter who was all about ring smarts IMO. I think when he finally had some 'key performances' it was his ability to make adjustments and implement his Jazzy style on his opponents. Often at breakneck pace.

[itrymariti]

OK i'll have a spin.


OFFENCE

1 - Thou Shalt Stay On Balance.

It's interesting to me that there's disagreement - even now - about to what degree a fighter should sacrifice balance in favour of defence, or rather ease of balance. Basically this boils down to how square a fighter should stand behind his lead foot, just to stress the difference between standing square, which is about footwork/position, and coming square, which is about shifting out of the traditionally taught "side on" presentation of the fighter to the opponent showing the smaller target. My thoughts have always been that a fighters individual stance should be defined by styles (Calzaghe, Frazier) or the fighter's individual attribute, balance. A naturally well balanced fighter can afford to present the smallest target possible (Ali, Hopkins) whereas a fighter that is less "naturally" balanced can come a little squarer in order to maintain balance (Sam Peter). I'd treat both styles equally for that reason, I don't see one as superior to the other, although a fighter could be "mis-trained".

Key to balance is the ability to transfer the weight of a punch. The difference between an arm-punch and 100% lethal torque can be weight-transfer on balance. The past-master in this department, that department is Bernard Hopkins.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One of the reasons Hopkins-Calzaghe was so fascinating was that these were two opposites in terms of balacne. Hopkins is oen of the most perfectly balanced fighters in history, Calzaghe is horribly balanced. Joe is able to harass better balanced fighters because he doesn't get "set" in the traditional way, he launches sudden attacks from traditionally impossible angles and positions and explosiveness. It makes it very hard for the "traditional fighter (Hopkins) to remain on balance. But Hopkisn remains on balance througout this fight.

For a fighter known primarily for his defence, Hopkins is always ready to transfer his weight and punch properly from the balanced position, in spite of Joe's (perfect) tactic to keep Hopkins on the move and off balance. Traditional thinking holds that a fighter moving away loses power. Here's a fighter who embraces those traditions without losing the power. There are examples all over the above linked film. A good one is from around 3.25. Hopkins has been on the move throughout, he's movin away from his man and to his right. Because he is moving often Hokins is breaking up his steps into frequent very very small moves (which cost him, probably, but is still technically correct) making sure that his balance is "on" for every single one of them, and so is able to bring across a non-traditional arced right hand when the opportunity presents itself, inspite of the fact that this punch requires him to transfer his balance all the way across against a much faster, younger fighter who is in a traditional position of superior balance (moving forwards in small incriments) without placing himself in serious danger. His balance enhances his speed, explosiveness, defence, accuracy and power.


Later in the fight, at the end of seven, Calzaghe is moving forwards very badly balanced throwing slapping punches. Hopkins does not panic despite being swarmed, stays on balance and throws a clipping right hand, best seen here at 4:35:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This fight was seen as controversial. People have scored it quite wide both ways. I had it close for Calzaghe. Whatever the truth, the above clip captures the essence of the fight. Calzaghe throws many seemingly less hurtful punches and Hopkins throws a single punch that appears more affective. The slow motion may tell another story, but the judges do not have access to slow motion replays. Whatever your own feelings about this fight I think the reason it has become so debatable was specifically Bernard's wonderful balance. He's able to flip a stylistic dis-advantage and turn it to his advantage based upon this single attribute.

There's a reason it would be #1 on my offence list.


How do you explain this (0:34)?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[McGrain]

How do you explain this (0:34)?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


This is now up on youtube in HD. Looks even more disturbing.

[Bill Butcher]

1. Learn how to throw every 1 of the punches correctly, compactly and straight, learn how to powerpunch. Most champions havent mastered this

And yet they became champions :think

[Bill Butcher]

I had $$ on Calzaghe:D

Me too :D

I always fancied him over Hopkins at any stage tbh.

[Flea Man]

How do you explain this (0:34)?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Umm....there should just be a disclaimer at the end of McGrain's post that reads something like:

*In the event that you are a Genius, feel free to disregard this

:lol:

[The Morlocks]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

How would a ten commandments of boxing read? What are the ten hardest technical rules for success in boxing? Raise one or ten or any number in between, but no more.

If you're feeling extra brave:

Give an example of a fighter who made a success of boxing inspite of consistantly breaking this rule, and another fighter who holds your commandment as true in the proof of his sticking to it firmly.
is that a picture of a 50 something Duran in the corner before his last fight w/ Canacho?:smoke

[Jersey Joe]

Keep your chin down and your guard up

Example: Winky Wright
Counterexample: Ali

Throw punches in bunches:
Example: Joe Louis
Counterexample: Julian Jackson :D

From the outside, lead with the jab
Example: Larry Holmes
Counterexample: Roy Jones Jr

Don't left hook a left-hooker
Example: Razor Ruddock vs Tommy Morrison :D
Counterexample: Joe Frazier

[lefthook31]

Basic stuff

1 Hands up
2 chin down
3 elbows in
4 stance should be shoulder width apart
5 turn sideways to reduce the target
6 (conventional fighter) move to your left front foot first, to your right backfoot first
7 move on the balls of your feet
8 Hands return to the same position from which the punches were thrown (up)
9 jab is your steering wheel
10 never move straight back from an onrushing opponent (step to the side)

[GPater11093]

That Burley video (analysing genius), I think needs to be in this thread

[teeto]

Implement defence and offense as part of your overall composed and balnced fighting style. Don't go all out in one or the other from the off.

Example- Jose Napoles, Carlos Ortiz, Marco Antonio Barerra (not consistently though)

Falsification- Cory Spinks, Derrick Gainer (too much defence), Jack Dempsey, Joe Frazier (all out offense)

Not to knock them for effectiveness, but we're talking technical commandments here.

I reckon this commandment or one similar to it could be good as the tenth because it's sort of the ultimate summary.

[teeto]

That Burley video (analysing genius), I think needs to be in this thread
Your wish is my command

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[GPater11093]

Nice one Teeto

Just been watching Nkiko Joyi the wee african Strawweight who is pretty handy but one thing he does not do is finish off a body shot by going to the head. That is definitly a rule of boxing.

[janitor]

The eleventh commandment should be:

Fighting by the boxing book is what you win by, but it canm also be what you get beaten by.

[thejokerswild]

Some commandments in a fight.


Enter the fight with the advantage of better preperation- Superior force, superior intelligence. Calculation and preparation are by far the most decisive factors in victory

The integrity of your form and posture are key to carrying out a successful tactical and strategic fight. Maintaining strong order is key to clearing the fog of war.

The presence of mobility should always be a factor in your attack as well in defense. More punches, more blocking, more movement, having more options will swarm your opponant with more conditions of your choosing.

Distort your opponants analysis of you through the use of disinformation and ambiguous posturing and defense. Feign disorder, this will bait him into attacking your strengths and thus placing him in an ambush. It will also conceal your own weakness and disorder.

Harrass, demoralize and alienate your opponant from his will to win. If your opponant loses his determination to defeat your will to win, certain victory is not far off. The Moral and Mental Warfare are just as important to victory as Physical Warfare.

Count the cost of your attack, if your supply is spent, punching, defence and order are dulled in future attacks. On the other side, if your opponant is taking ease, give him no rest - you have to lean on your opponant to make him fall.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected - surprise attacks are the least costly and easily won. Catching an opponant offguard will arouse panic, disorder and irrational decision making in your opponant.

If the nature of your position prevents clear action and options, disperse and reset. Also, if your supplies are low, disperse and reset. Theres no point going into an attack with nothing to fight with.

If you are overly defensive you are giving the opponant the initiative of control, in deciding the conditions of attack. He will have the advantage when attacking you, there is no victory in not attacking your opponant.

Never let your opponant take an advantage, defend your weak points well. Power is made by power taken, weak points are the start to defeating ones strong points.

If he is secure in position, then one must prepare for attack.






.

[mightyd40]

thou shalt fight for the love of the sport, not for the love of money....

example, old school fighters
falsification, modern fighters.

[GPater11093]

Was thinking of this today actually.

A boxer should always remain defensivly and offensivly aware in equal measures.

Dont have a flasification but Napoles and Duran show how important this is.

A boxer should always be 'first'

Most boxers do this but one particular example of falsification is Benitez, he hardly ever led when against top class opposition.

[lefthook31]

A boxer shouldnt always be first though. Counterpunchers like to go second. ;)

[GPater11093]

A boxer shouldnt always be first though. Counterpunchers like to go second. ;)

But do they?

I would say being first is landing first and holding the iniative. Look at Ray Leonard vs Wilfredo Benitez. Benitez was the counter-puncher and to a certain extent Leonard was looking to counter.

When Ray feinted, Benitez reacted then Leonard landed that was being first as Benitez couldnt get the iniative after that. Later on in the fight Benitez started to be first in the same manner.

[lefthook31]

But do they?

I would say being first is landing first and holding the iniative. Look at Ray Leonard vs Wilfredo Benitez. Benitez was the counter-puncher and to a certain extent Leonard was looking to counter.

When Ray feinted, Benitez reacted then Leonard landed that was being first as Benitez couldnt get the iniative after that. Later on in the fight Benitez started to be first in the same manner.
If you came forward at me and threw a jab and I countered it with an overhand right, I would be looking to set the pace and distance that way. I always tried to get my opponent to come to me and then I would try and establish the range and pace of the fight by countering what he was doing. Being first to mantain the iniative like you said is a good thing, but it doesnt necessarily establish it.

[GPater11093]

If you came forward at me and threw a jab and I countered it with an overhand right, I would be looking to set the pace and distance that way. I always tried to get my opponent to come to me and then I would try and establish the range and pace of the fight by countering what he was doing. Being first to mantain the iniative like you said is a good thing, but it doesnt necessarily establish it.

Thats fair enough, but Im getting off first and making you react, you are the one off balance. Unless you are specifically waiting for a certain punch, then again I hold the iniative as i can vary it

[lefthook31]

Thats fair enough, but Im getting off first and making you react, you are the one off balance. Unless you are specifically waiting for a certain punch, then again I hold the iniative as i can vary it
Not with the right type of movement and Im looking at you knowing your going to throw one of two punches from a conventional stance, so I am ready to counter it.
I saw a similar scenario in your last fight. You were reduced to the shorter fighter, by trying to force the fight rather than using your height and reach to counter that guy and establish your range and height advantage. If you had tried to get him moving towards you, it would have been easier to counter him coming forward and get him thinking. Thats when you start using your jab and righthand to maintain it. Thats it, you only need a couple punches and the right movement and you can win a lot of fights thinking.