Most Technically Perfect Boxers

[McGrain]

We have a thread about the most naturally athletic boxers.

Now let's have one about the most technically perfect boxers.

I think this one may be a little more tricky but a little more revealing too.

[salsanchezfan]

I go out of my way not to be a nuthugger, but in all seriousness, Salvador Sanchez is a true candidate here. There was absolutely nothing he did badly. Everything was textbook.

Jose Napoles was another one, although he did hold his hands low.

Ruben Olivares (when he was in form) was as close to a complete fighter as you could find.

[McGrain]

I go out of my way not to be a nuthugger, but in all seriousness, Salvador Sanchez is a true candidate here. There was absolutely nothing he did badly. Everything was textbook.

Would you say he had one punch or area where he excelled more than others? In what area was he most tecnhincally perfect?

[McGrain]

Let's throw in Ricardo Lopez and Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Spread it out though; what things did they do well, specifically?

[brooklyn1550]

Ricardo Lopez
Joe Louis
Alexis Arguello
Juan Manuel Marquez
Miguel Canto

[salsanchezfan]

Would you say he had one punch or area where he excelled more than others? In what area was he most tecnhincally perfect?


........That's the thing; no punch really stood out more than any other. No one has ever said about him, "oh, his hook was a little wide," or, "his jab wasn't particularly sharp." They were all delivered perfectly.

If there was just one trait that shone through, it was that stamina that allowed all these tools to shine through at a top level into the late rounds.

If there is a knock against him, it's that he did seem a little uncomfortable in the role of aggressor. But when push came to shove, he did it, and always won.

[rekcutnevets]

Mike McCallum.

Has all the skills a fighter needs. Nice form, nice combinations. Good counter puncher, so also good defensively.

[sweet_scientist]

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Sal Sanchez
3. Eder Jofre
4. Carlos Zarate
5. Joe Louis
6. Floyd Mayweather
7. Alexis Arguello
8. Packey McFarland
9. Jose Napoles
10. Bernard Hopkins
11. Wilfredo Gomez
12. Ricardo Lopez
13. Mike McCallum
14. Carlos Ortiz
15. Ruben Olivares

[NickHudson]

I like Joe Louis for a HW example.

Stable base, incredibly powerful short, neat punches, all mixed into text book combos.

Winky Wright might be a good one for a technically superb defensive fighter, and Hagler for a textbook southpaw?

Having said this I most enjoy watching the creative geniuses who do things there own way, often writing their own textbook - Hamed, Ali, Duran...

[doublesuited]

Floyd has perfect defense and his skills are very refined, you have but to watch him fight and see how technically perfect he is. I don't think he's the best ever or anything like that, because he is nothing super special at weights above 130 really, but his technique is flawless.

Floyd does things that aren't that technically great defensively. If he didn't have his speed, he would've been knocked out long ago...

My choices:

Ray Robinson
Ezzard Charles
Ricardo Lopez
Mike McCallum

[Senya13]

Funny. Both Robinson and Charles were a lot more flawed in defense than Mayweather.

[Sizzle]

Floyd Mayweather Jnr.

An example of fighters using reflex/speed to avoid being hit would be Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones Jnr, displayed by the very "untextbook" but incredibly effective way they leaned their heads back and away from straight punches and got away with it. As they got older and their natural gifts diminished, their fundamental technical flaws were exposed, though. Ali dealt with it a lot better though, given his astonishing toughness, astute strategic thought, and mental fortitude.

Floyd has good reflexes, but clearly these are only part of the package in his case, and not the basis for his evasiveness. His footwork is sensational which helps him keep out of range of his opponents, and he uses the shoulder roll perfectly - Furthermore, the way he all but nullified De La Hoyas body barrage in their bout showed how well he could parry punches to the body.

He's demonstrated his superb infighting defensive ability against Burton, and against Castillo in patches.

Steward has commented on his ability to negate the effect of punches that connect by turning his head with the punch. Be it parrying, slipping, ducking, or controlling range, Floyd is a "how to" on how to defend. His ring "awareness" is unreal also - He uses the ring to great effect and doesn't allow himself to be trapped.

I actually think on a technical level his punching is pretty good too, at 130lbs anyway. He could knock you at at this weight (his most comfortable). At the higher weights however he tends to throw quicker less effective punches and less combinations.

[Senya13]

Floyd vs Roy, a couple of things (out of many more where Roy showed better skills or abilities than Floyd, even though Mayweather is as skillful as they come, All-Time Top 5 easily)

Floyd is more vulnerable when throwing combinations, as he doesn't know how to place his arms in front of him during this to deflect or block the counters.

At the ropes, Roy is much better at using body movement, blocking and parrying punches and countering, than Floyd has ever showed.

[mcvey]

Harold Johnson
Roberto Duran
Joe louis
Benny Leonard
Carlos Ortiz
I wont say Arguello because his foot work was a little ponderous.
Marvin Hagler
Ray Leonard
Ray Robinson took too many punches he could have avoided
Willie Pep
Jimmy Mclarnin.

[janitor]

Tommy Loughran is an interesting case to look at.

Here you have a pound for pound great who really didn't have anything outside of technical briliance.

He had no power, a frail constitution and poor recuperative powers. He got as far as he did entirely through technical superiority over his opponents.

[robert ungurean]

Add luis Rodrequez

[Doppleganger]

Tommy Hearns deserves a mention. He was a very technically correct fighter who utilized all the old-time fundamentals, like the 1-2, left jab, right cross that you hardly ever see in boxing these days.

[MachineGunMitch]

willie pep

[JohnThomas1]

Alexis Arguello came straight to mind. A simply wonderful technician. A little stiff, not the fastest but technically superb. Hopkins in the latter era. Old school. Eddie Mustafa Muhammad was also a sensational technician.

[young griffo]

-Winky Wright has based his career on the fundamentals of a superb jab and an airtight defense.

-Ricardo Lopez was superior in every facet of boxing to virtually everbody he fought.

-Alexis Arguello was textbook in every way.He didn't waste a punch or expend any energy with unnecessary movement.

-I've only seen a small amount of footage of him but what I've seen of Eder Jofre he looks to be a fighter with complete mastery of his craft.

[Minotauro]

Jose Napoles
Eder Jofre
Tommy Hearns
Antonio Cervantes
Rafael Marquez

[young griffo]

Jose Napoles
Eder Jofre
Tommy Hearns
Antonio Cervantes
Rafael Marquez
Good call on Marquez he's very impressive.

[Sizzle]

Floyd vs Roy, a couple of things (out of many more where Roy showed better skills or abilities than Floyd, even though Mayweather is as skillful as they come, All-Time Top 5 easily)

Floyd is more vulnerable when throwing combinations, as he doesn't know how to place his arms in front of him during this to deflect or block the counters.

At the ropes, Roy is much better at using body movement, blocking and parrying punches and countering, than Floyd has ever showed.

In fairness I think the 2nd Tarver fight showed some defensive frailty on Roys behalf

[Shake]

Roy Jones breaks every single rule. His 'defense' consists of staying out of range and leaping, and otherwise relying on (uncanny)reflexes.

I'll put in my nod for Alexis Arguello and Winky Wright. Hagler was technically good offensively, but his defense was a little leaky. Same with Joe Luis. (on the level we're discussing)

[Senya13]

In fairness I think the 2nd Tarver fight showed some defensive frailty on Roys behalf
Watch it again. Roy throws a left counter, and at the same time keeps his right hand next to his chin against a left hook from Tarver. It was only because Tarver stepped forward and to the right (highly unusual move that Tarver never showed in any other fight in similar situations) he got his left hand past that guard.

[Stonehands89]

Watch it again. Roy throws a left counter, and at the same time keeps his right hand next to his chin against a left hook from Tarver. It was only because Tarver stepped forward and to the right (highly unusual move that Tarver never showed in any other fight in similar situations) he got his left hand past that guard.

Wrong. You need to watch it again.

When an orthodox fighter fights a southpaw, a basic rule is to keep your left foot outside of the southpaw's right foot. Not only did Jones fail to do this, he also was in the middle of pulling back. Then he squared off and looked as if he closed his eyes. Tarver easily positioned himself at the perfect angle to land that left hook.

In addition, the long right that Jones had just thrown in close was done while his left hand was dangling by his waist. Dangerous stuff. Tarver could have finished him with a right hook.

Those are at least 4 basic technical mistakes that Jones made.

The fact is, Jones was a superior athletic phenomenon who relied on speed, timing, power, and reflexes. That was his thing. His vulnerability was inversely related to his athleticism. Great technicians adapt to age and rely more on technical skill once their physical powers diminish. To wit: Duran. Moore. Jones was athletically superior to both, but in terms of technical expertise, he wasn't even close.

[Doppleganger]

Wrong. You need to watch it again.

When an orthodox fighter fights a southpaw, a basic rule is to keep your left foot outside of the southpaw's right foot. Not only did Jones fail to do this, he also was in the middle of pulling back. Then he squared off and looked as if he closed his eyes. Tarver easily positioned himself at the perfect angle to land that left hook.

In addition, the long right that Jones had just thrown in close was done while his left hand was dangling by his waist. Dangerous stuff. Tarver could have finished him with a right hook.

Those are at least 4 basic technical mistakes that Jones made.

The fact is, Jones was a superior athletic phenomenon who relied on speed, timing, power, and reflexes. That was his thing. His vulnerability was inversely related to his athleticism. Great technicians adapt to age and rely more on technical skill once their physical powers diminish. To wit: Duran. Moore. Jones was athletically superior to both, but in terms of technical expertise, he wasn't even close.

Ggod post Stonehands. :good Jones did indeed rely on his extraordinary physical gifts - his technique could often be described as lousy. He got away with fundamental errors that ordinary athletes would have been punished for.

[Titan1]

Bernard Taylor
Howard Davis Jr.

[MrSmall]

How about Mike Tyson?

[McGrain]

How about Mike Tyson?

How about him?

Give us your thoughts, what ares of Mike's boxing could be describe as technically perfect (or excellent)?

[McGrain]

Roberto Duran
Winky Wright
Bernard Hopkins
Marvin Hagler
Salvador Sanchez
Alexis Arguello
Mike McCallum
Carlos Monzon

If you had to pick just one of these fighters to exemplify technical excellence could you do it? Which one would you pick?

What areas do they excel in technically?

[Mantequilla]

Ayub Kalule
Harold Johnson

[jyuza]

In his prime, Marvin Hagler was the most perfect boxer I have seen.
Salvador Sanchez too was impressive.
And Thomas Hearns has to be there, to out box Leonard throughout 14 rounds you have to be perfectly skilled.

[Senya13]

When an orthodox fighter fights a southpaw, a basic rule is to keep your left foot outside of the southpaw's right foot. Not only did Jones fail to do this
Would you mind watching the fight and telling us where Jones' left foot was?

he also was in the middle of pulling back.
The moment of the punch Jones' head and upper body were moving forward while he was throwing a left hook. Watch the replays.

Then he squared off and looked as if he closed his eyes.
You are making things up. No reply from any angle showed anything like this. Jones was looking in the direction where his left hook hit Tarver's head.

Tarver easily positioned himself at the perfect angle to land that left hook.
At no other fight Tarver showed such move. Plus it was impossible for him to do, as he doubled up and closed his eyes and from that position as he was straightening up, he stepped forward and to the right, without even seeing Jones.

In addition, the long right that Jones had just thrown in close was done while his left hand was dangling by his waist. Dangerous stuff. Tarver could have finished him with a right hook.
Tarver threw a right jab which Jones deflected with his left hand, and so Tarver's hand was extended forward and downwards in a position, where he would need to pull it back, turn his body clockwise, and position himself to throw it again. That would take him another second or so, when Jones had already finished throwing his right.

Those are at least 4 basic technical mistakes that Jones made.
Those are 4 BS claims you have made without even caring to watch the replays again, so that to speak up facts, not lies that are contradicted by facts.

[Drew101]

Ricardo Lopez is about as close to perfect as anyone that I've seen in terms of the way he delivered his punches to both the body and head, and in terms of how he was able to avoid punches. He wasn't necessarily that fast, but his ability to time an opponent, and create openings for his punches both at range and in the trenches was something to behold.

Although he wasn't particularly gifeted, I think Maurice Hope warrants a mention, too. His punching technique was about as sound as it gets.

[Icemmann]

1NMKJmq3uV8

theres the replay, didnt see one that just showed the round without sound effects.

[sweet_scientist]

1NMKJmq3uV8

theres the replay, didnt see one that just showed the round without sound effects.

:rofl

[Senya13]

I don't need a youtube, when I have two normal quality versions of the fight with replays from different cameras, and a VirtualDubMod to watch them frame by frame if needed.

[Mohak]

1NMKJmq3uV8

theres the replay, didnt see one that just showed the round without sound effects.

''HADOKEN!'' :rofl

[jyuza]

1NMKJmq3uV8

theres the replay, didnt see one that just showed the round without sound effects.

:rofl:rofl:lol::lol:

[Irish Steel]

Tunney, his defense was amazing.

[Duodenum]

Sweet Saoul Mamby had significant success and a lengthy career doing things by the book. He did possess significant advantages in handspeed and slipping ability, but he was also somebody who provided good instructional material for study.

As a southpaw boxer, I felt Jim Watt did a great deal with what he had available. He was slower than most lightweights, possessed average height and reach, yet had a fine right jab, and outboxed the fastest man in the sport when he decisioned Howard Davis Jr. He also did a superb job in a career ending decision loss to Arguello, a tactician known for chewing up southpaw opposition and spitting out the bones. Although he did lose the title, Watt performed well, boxing while retreating, not his usual approach to a match, and became one of only two of Arguello's opponents to go 15 rounds in a losing effort (Arturo Leon).

Watt's fellow Scot, Ken Buchanan, was a superb right handed technician, and Duran has identified Buchanan as his finest opponent. (I wouldn't mind viewing a replay of Buchanan/Watt again.)

Benny Leonard was the definitive orthodox champion of his era.

When considering how to answer a question like this, ask whose films would be best used as a training device. Things like great reflexes, an extraordinary reach, and naturally awesome power can be inborn traits. Who has achieved success by trumping physical advantages with superior boxing technique?

Vilomar Fernandez was an amazingly quick and gifted boxer who made few mistakes, but he was also an extraordinarily short armed boxer who could yet outperform much longer armed opponents from long range by outjabbing them. At times in his matches with the much taller and longer armed speedsters Hilmer Kenty and Howard Davis Jr., Vilomar was able to do exactly that. (Most observers believed Fernandez did enough to earn decision wins in those bouts.)

Dwight Muhammad Qawi had the best counterjab of any boxer I watched while following the sport closely. He was masterful at cutting off the ring, and splitting his opponent's defense by keeping his lead foot between his target's feet.

There are too many others to mention, but I wanted to stimulate those of you who have far more knowledge of boxing history than I do, to "think outside the box" a little bit, in offering some creative answers.

[Titan1]

Sweet Saoul Mamby had significant success and a lengthy career doing things by the book. He did possess significant advantages in handspeed and slipping ability, but he was also somebody who provided good instructional material for study.

As a southpaw boxer, I felt Jim Watt did a great deal with what he had available. He was slower than most lightweights, possessed average height and reach, yet had a fine right jab, and outboxed the fastest man in the sport when he decisioned Howard Davis Jr. He also did a superb job in a career ending decision loss to Arguello, a tactician known for chewing up southpaw opposition and spitting out the bones. Although he did lose the title, Watt performed well, boxing while retreating, not his usual approach to a match, and became one of only two of Arguello's opponents to go 15 rounds in a losing effort (Arturo Leon).

Watt's fellow Scot, Ken Buchanan, was a superb right handed technician, and Duran has identified Buchanan as his finest opponent. (I wouldn't mind viewing a replay of Buchanan/Watt again.)

Benny Leonard was the definitive orthodox champion of his era.

When considering how to answer a question like this, ask whose films would be best used as a training device. Things like great reflexes, an extraordinary reach, and naturally awesome power can be inborn traits. Who has achieved success by trumping physical advantages with superior boxing technique?

Vilomar Fernandez was an amazingly quick and gifted boxer who made few mistakes, but he was also an extraordinarily short armed boxer who could yet outperform much longer armed opponents from long range by outjabbing them. At times in his matches with the much taller and longer armed speedsters Hilmer Kenty and Howard Davis Jr., Vilomar was able to do exactly that. (Most observers believed Fernandez did enough to earn decision wins in those bouts.)

Dwight Muhammad Qawi had the best counterjab of any boxer I watched while following the sport closely. He was masterful at cutting off the ring, and splitting his opponent's defense by keeping his lead foot between his target's feet.

There are too many others to mention, but I wanted to stimulate those of you who have far more knowledge of boxing history than I do, to "think outside the box" a little bit, in offering some creative answers.

Who did better against Vilomar, Howard or Hilmer?

[Robbi]

Most technically perfect. Juan Manuel Marquez and Bernard Hopkins. These fighters should be studied by todays young prospects.

Jones, Mayweather, Ali, and others were pretty unorthodox in terms of style and technique. They are technically brilliant, but not in a textbook type of way.

[Duodenum]

Who did better against Vilomar, Howard or Hilmer?It wasn't really a matter of who did better against Vilomar, but who he performed more poorly against, and that would be Hilmer.

Fernandez was a dedicated fitness fanatic. Even when not training for a match, he was a gym rat simply keeping himself in shape. However, that's no kind of substitute for regular competitive activity, and Vilomar was frequently not sharp, due to the long stretches of inactivity he was notorious for. This sort of ring rust is especially detrimental to his intricate level of precision ringmanship. After he nearly dethroned a peak Duran, he couldn't get any matches against competitive opposition. This was much further aggravated when he actually did win a decision over peak Arguello, a challenge Vilomar probably secured only because Alexis was already a champion whose title wasn't on the line.

After the Arguello win, Fernandez had to wait nearly a year and a half before securing a date against a preliminary nobody, then his match against Howard. Vilomar didn't display any ring rust against Howard, in part by completely surprising Davis with his opening round charge, winging Davis to the deck with a second round hook delivered from behind Howard. I don't remember Fernandez taking a backwards step in that one, completely defying what Howard expected of him off the Duran fight. Despite actually making the fight, producing all the aggression in the match, the CBS executives who signed Davis to that foolish iron clad contract out of the Olympics saw to it that Howard received the patently absurd decision.

The better part of another year went by before Fernandez got another match, this time a second crack at the LW Title against Kenty. Now, Fernandez started true to form. His early round legwork was some of the very finest I've ever seen, like he was boxing on springs.

When I think of diminutive boxers with little power and short arms who specialize in outmanuevering and outjabbing taller opposition from long range behind a quick jab, Miguel Canto, Tyrone "Butterfly" Crawley, Wille Pep, and Vilomar Fernandez come to mind right away.

I enjoy a spellbinding slugfest as much as anybody else, but these are the sort of boxers who make me want to take notes. At his very best, Fernandez might have outboxed Kenty stablemate Tommy Hearns from outside. He was that skilled.

Anyhow, the color commentator (I think it was Gil Clancy on CBS), quickly began harping on the fact of Vilomar's inactivity, as he was getting increasingly flatfooted when the middle rounds approached. There was never any question of Kenty being able to stop Fernandez, but Hilmer was seemingly threatening to turn the match into a scoring rout. Then, at the outset of the championship rounds, Hilmer suddenly developed a leg cramp, which impaired his mobility, and resulted in him falling down as Fernadez hit him. The referee waived it off as a slip, though it appeared to be a legal KD. Although Kenty was clearly hampered, Fernandez remained workmanlike, failing to capitalize on a golden opportunity.

The guess is that chronic inactivity had robbed Vilomar of the late round energy needed to attack sufficiently to secure the decision. Still, the commentators thought Fernandez had done enough to win the title. But Hilmer took the decision by a margin of four to six points on all scorecards.

Vilomar Fernandez might be acclaimed as an ATG, if he'd been around in the 1930s and 1940s. He certainly wouldn't have had any problems getting matches in such an era. By contrast, Willie Pep might have needed to take up taxi cab driving to support himself in the postwar era. Who would have been willing to box him, at a time when a single defeat or victory could cause a boxer to be avoided like the plague, by managers and promoters?

[Stonehands89]

Would you mind watching the fight and telling us where Jones' left foot was?

The moment of the punch Jones' head and upper body were moving forward while he was throwing a left hook. Watch the replays.

You are making things up. No reply from any angle showed anything like this. Jones was looking in the direction where his left hook hit Tarver's head.

At no other fight Tarver showed such move. Plus it was impossible for him to do, as he doubled up and closed his eyes and from that position as he was straightening up, he stepped forward and to the right, without even seeing Jones.

Tarver threw a right jab which Jones deflected with his left hand, and so Tarver's hand was extended forward and downwards in a position, where he would need to pull it back, turn his body clockwise, and position himself to throw it again. That would take him another second or so, when Jones had already finished throwing his right.

Those are 4 BS claims you have made without even caring to watch the replays again, so that to speak up facts, not lies that are contradicted by facts.

Senya-Roy, you have the clip that Icemann gave us. Watch the slow motion and you will see that Jones' left foot was inside of Tarver's right foot... you will also see his left his left hand dangling low. For confirmation of every other observation that I made in the previous post, watch the clip.

No better yet, don't watch it. Those blindest are those who refuse to see. So have your best and most trusted friend who knows boxing watch it and he will tell you what mistakes your hero made.

[Senya13]

I don't need a youtube clip. Unlike this poor-quality video, the official one has replays from several other angles, including from the camera above the ring.

Jones' hand was low because Tarver was in no position to throw it again after Jones' blocked his right jab, it's quite simple.
No replays from any angle (there were 5 of them I think) showed Jones' closing his eyes, on the contrary the camera in Jones' corner on one of the replays shows Jones looking at the target while he is throwing his left hook - at Tarver's head.
No replays show Tarver in position to see Jones' right hand guard when he started stepping forward and to the right, for him to pre-calculate that move in order to get himself in position to get around that guard. On the contary, there are reasons to think that when Tarver started his move, he still had his eyes closed after he bent low while trying to avoid Jones' right hand.

[Doc McCoy]

Vito Antuofermo :smoke

. . . . . . . but seriously, Lupe Pintor hasn't been mentioned yet and I always thought he was a very technically sound exponent of the game.

Always on his toes, great balance, worked behind the jab, great left hook to the body, usually followed by a very hard and straight right hand.

Some great names mentioned with Duodenum's comments on Vilomar Fernandez great reading. Always an intriguing figure and gave the likes of Duran & Arguello all the trouble they could handle through ringsmarts and great conditioning.

McCallum, Arguello, Ricardo Lopez I all agree with totally.

I'd also profer Orlando Canizales as another technically sound boxer.

Duodenum do you know if Mamby's fight against Duran exists on tape? I've read about Saoul's career here and there but am yet to see any of his fights on tape.

[Senya13]

Mikkel Kessler deserves a mention of modern fighters.

[jyuza]

Mikkel Kessler deserves a mention of modern fighters.

Technically speaking he is very good but not even close to a mexican like Marquez, Morales, Barrera.
Plus, he takes to much hit so defensively speaking (which is a part of the technical stuff) he sucks.

[Senya13]

Where did you see him get hit too much? He has a better defense than the three fighters you mentioned. Actually, he slightly reminds me of younger Morales, but with better defense.

[jyuza]

Where did you see him get hit too much? He has a better defense than the three fighters you mentioned. Actually, he slightly reminds me of younger Morales, but with better defense.

Just look at his last fight.

Andrade landed multiple shots easily and Librado is no Calzaghe in term of offensive speed.

[Senya13]

Kessler blocked, slipped or rolled with most of those punches, very few of them actually landed clean. And Andrade has the advantage of having a all-time great chin.

[jyuza]

Kessler blocked, slipped or rolled with most of those punches, very few of them actually landed clean. And Andrade has the advantage of having a all-time great chin.

I am sorry I didn't see him slip or duck any punch at all. Plus, this is what schocked me the most in that fight actually.
Andrade had an iron chin, that why he made it to the bell or else he would have been KO'd.

[mcvey]

Bernard Taylor
Howard Davis Jr.
Howard Davis was an under acheiver,primarily because he was paranoid about getting hit ,consequently he was allways punching when out of range ,his jabs were designed to keep the opponent from reaching him ,not to connect and land,he could and should have beaten Jim Watt but his heart didnt match his talent.IMO.

[Duodenum]

Vito Antuofermo :smokeVito was actually a vastly underrated defensive fighter, very difficult to nail flush, but you'd need to watch his footage very carefully to observe how subtly he'd angle his jaw and head to avoid a punch's impact, not something many judges would pick up on, but which astute boxing writer Bob Waters did.. . . . . . . but seriously, Lupe Pintor hasn't been mentioned yet and I always thought he was a very technically sound exponent of the game.I think Pintor's been somewhat overlooked because of the way he was awarded his title from Zarate, a decision which surprised even Lupe.Always on his toes, great balance, worked behind the jab, great left hook to the body, usually followed by a very hard and straight right hand.Check out his left hook to the ribs against Wilfredo Gomez, and see textbook execution. This against a foe noted for an effective defense picking off bodyshots.Duodenum do you know if Mamby's fight against Duran exists on tape? I've read about Saoul's career here and there but am yet to see any of his fights on tape.I've always taken it for granted that it was televised. They met in Miami Beach at a time when Duran was acclaimed the P4P best, and even his numerous non-title matches were media events frequently broadcast, so that's been assumed on my part.

As for the match itself, Roberto simply outhustled Saoul, particularly on the inside, according to the reporting I've read.

It's my understanding that Saoul was greatly admired by his boxing peers. When he decisioned Monroe Brooks, Larry Holmes, providing ringside commentary, heaped lavish praise on Mamby during a masterful performance. Nearly two decades later, Larry employed Saoul as his trainer for the final phase of his own career. A solid, solid pro.

[Vantage_West]

benny leonard
joe gans
only becuase in thier day and age they were so perfect in compared t oeverybody else

[deram]

Technically speaking he is very good but not even close to a mexican like Marquez, Morales, Barrera.
Plus, he takes to much hit so defensively speaking (which is a part of the technical stuff) he sucks.

You gotta be kidding. Most people that actually know Kessler, know that one of the things he is great at is defense. For instance against Andrade according to the stats Andrade landed around 10% (!!!) of 900 thrown. And he "landed easily on Kessler".

Sounds like you are Mexican or something because you surely are way too biased here.

[jyuza]

You gotta be kidding. Most people that actually know Kessler, know that one of the things he is great at is defense. For instance against Andrade according to the stats Andrade landed around 10% (!!!) of 900 thrown. And he "landed easily on Kessler".

Sounds like you are Mexican or something because you surely are way too biased here.

I ain't no mexican I am french....

To say he is great at defense is surprising... I think he has got some good boxing skills, textbook jabs, perfect one-two... but come one you need to rewatch that fight. Some of Andrade punches should have not even touch him but not only they touched him, they landed perfectly.
Kessler is very good, definitely number 2 at 168 but as he is now Calzaghe would just beat him.

[deram]

I ain't no mexican I am french....

To say he is great at defense is surprising... I think he has got some good boxing skills, textbook jabs, perfect one-two... but come one you need to rewatch that fight. Some of Andrade punches should have not even touch him but not only they touched him, they landed perfectly.
Kessler is very good, definitely number 2 at 168 but as he is now Calzaghe would just beat him.

Well, I know you are high on Calzaghe and Calzaghe IS very good - for sure. But I think you are severely underestimating Kessler. I think the thing is that you probably have only seen one or two Kessler fights. Try to get hold of some more and notice how often he gets hit and how he avoids it. It is absolutely beautiful technique and something only very few could carry out.

Start for instnace by looking at how these guys describe Kessler's strenghts and then go see if you can get your hands on some fights.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[jyuza]

Well, I know you are high on Calzaghe and Calzaghe IS very good - for sure. But I think you are severely underestimating Kessler. I think the thing is that you probably have only seen one or two Kessler fights. Try to get hold of some more and notice how often he gets hit and how he avoids it. It is absolutely beautiful technique and something only very few could carry out.

Start for instnace by looking at how these guys describe Kessler's strenghts and then go see if you can get your hands on some fights.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Well, I do acknowledge Calzaghe as the best 168er ... for now. Cause I think In 1 year Kessler will surpass him (and easily IMO).
You are right I didn't watch many of his previous fights (only the Beyer and the Librade one).
I should go take a look at his career.

[deram]

Well, I do acknowledge Calzaghe as the best 168er ... for now. Cause I think In 1 year Kessler will surpass him (and easily IMO).
You are right I didn't watch many of his previous fights (only the Beyer and the Librade one).
I should go take a look at his career.

Yes, I am happy that you will take a look at his fights. I look forward to hear from you in a couple of weeks or when you have gotten to see at least a couple more. Especially notice how seldom he gets hit and notice how he does it.

Personally I think Calzaghe has been the best he has ever been for the last two years,m and I think Kessler beats any version of Calzaghe - if I had to pick a winner, because I acknowledge it will most probably be close. Very close.

[Senya13]

Watch the slow motion and you will see that Jones' left foot was inside of Tarver's right foot...

Here's a replay from the camera above the ring.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Stonehands89]

And??

It's plain to see that Jones' left hand was dangling low

... and at the moment of impact,
- Jones' left foot was inside of Tarver's right foot
- Jones was standing flush

[Senya13]

Jones' left hand was low because there was no danger of being hit with a right hand from Tarver. Tarver's right hand was extended forward and was located in front of Jones' body, in position where he could not possibly deliver any punch at all, he would need to put his hand back and turn the body, which Jones' would react to accordingly, had Tarver attempted to do this.

At both moments, when he was throwing a right hook and then a left hook, Jones' left foot was outside of Tarver's right foot. To get to the position on second screenshot, Tarver stepped very far forward and to the right (as can be seen by comparing the two screens), making Jones' turn counter-clockwise to avoid getting head-butted by Tarver (had Jones stayed where he originally was that's what would have happened). During the course of the fight, both fighters are changing positions, and it's their task to react to it and adjust their own position accordingly, which takes time and is not considered a mistake by any trainer, that's the game - opponent is always trying to put you to disadvantage, and you react to it. The point is that you have to attack while in proper position, which Jones was in for both of his punches.

[Stonehands89]

Excuses are futile. Jones was in a bad position against a southpaw. He was squared off and his feet were misplaced. Tarver exploited this.

Usually, Senya, when boxers get knocked out early it is because they made a technical mistake. Their hands were low, their chin was up, their positioning was wrong, etc. Tarver did not perform "a once in a lifetime miracle" like you say, he merely saw an opportunity and took it -like any technically sound boxer will do. It happens every day.

Glen Johnson exploited Jones' defensive carelessness even better 4 months later.... and in the immortal words of Antonio Tarver, I ask you:

"You got any excuses tonight [Senya-] Roy?!?"

[cross_trainer]

Corbett. By the standards of his day, he does everything in textbook fashion.

[Fab2333]

Floyd has perfect defense and his skills are very refined, you have but to watch him fight and see how technically perfect he is. I don't think he's the best ever or anything like that, because he is nothing super special at weights above 130 really, but his technique is flawless.

Ricardo Lopez looked like a guy who went completely by the book. Perfect form, perfect combos, excellent movement and footwork, great defense. He had great power for the weight because he knew how to throw punches. If you saw him you saw a great textbook fighter.

very good post, I would also throw Bernard Hopkins in there. Bernard is the definition of athrowback fighter, who is technically sound. That is the main reason why bernard is still able to box at his age. He learned teh basics to boxingm and expounded on it. He rarely makes mistakes. Jus a thing of beauty technical wise

[Vantage_West]

How about Mike Tyson?he was technical using not his power or speed but technique to slip the punches use the jab loads of things an argument could be made.....but perfect dude he was a slugger with fast hands and good technique underated but not the best

[Vantage_West]

Excuses are futile. Jones was in a bad position against a southpaw. He was squared off and his feet were misplaced. Tarver exploited this.

Usually, Senya, when boxers get knocked out early it is because they made a technical mistake. Their hands were low, their chin was up, their positioning was wrong, etc. Tarver did not perform "a once in a lifetime miracle" like you say, he merely saw an opportunity and took it -like any technically sound boxer will do. It happens every day.

Glen Johnson exploited Jones' defensive carelessness even better 4 months later.... and in the immortal words of Antonio Tarver, I ask you:

"You got any excuses tonight [Senya-] Roy?!?"

look from roy's view his style is to hit and dodge...in this he threw a punch think it was a left hook or somthing it made tarvers head drop (now when that happens he was expecting a right hand) tarver then throws the wrong shot from the wrong side and wham right when roy lent back he just served his chin on a china dish...

that is a maybe the oddest knockout punch tarver did do a really unorthodox move ducking while moving to the right and shifting his wieght on to the other lef while launching the left hand

jones thought he got him but it was only tap....look in the rematch III when tarver drops a right hook he did the same type of movment shifting his body wieght away from the punching arm.

[Senya13]

Jones was in a bad position against a southpaw. He was squared off and his feet were misplaced. Tarver exploited this.
You seem to lack understanding about boxing being a dynamic game, where two people are competing to put each other in bad position, and not a single trainer calls such minor thing when it happens shortly once or twice or even several times during the fight, a lack of technical education, a flaw. It is impossible to keep your foot outside of there 100% of time, when both of you and your opponent are moving. Every single fighter gets into such situations tens of times in every fight, not matter how technically perfect they may be, nobody considers such moments technical mistake.

Usually, Senya, when boxers get knocked out early it is because they made a technical mistake.
That's right. Usually. And this was an exception, where a chance is probably one out of ten thousand that Tarver could slip a punch past the right hand guard like that. An accident.

Tarver did not perform "a once in a lifetime miracle" like you say, he merely saw an opportunity and took it
Tarver didn't see an opportunity, for the simple reason he had his head low and his eyes still closed when he moved forward for the punch like that. One of the replays is showing Tarver from the front while he is moving for that punch, it is obvious there he wasn't aware of Jones position, about his right hand guard, about Jones' chin that was not visible to him behind Jones' right glove, and about how far he had to move forward and to the right to slip his punch past the guard.

-like any technically sound boxer will do. It happens every day.
Such situations as that don't happen every day, they happen once or twice in a lifetime. The only other example of such move as Tarver did, that I have in my 3.5K+ fights collection, is when Nunn knocked out Kalambay, but there Nunn was aware what he was doing, and did this with open eyes, seeing the target. Tarver had done it with closed eyes, not seeing the target.

Glen Johnson exploited Jones' defensive carelessness even better 4 months later....
They were two completely different situations. There's no similarity between them, except for result.

[cannabis]

i like SRR, willie pep and duran

[Stonehands89]

You seem to lack understanding about boxing being a dynamic game, where two people are competing to put each other in bad position, and not a single trainer calls such minor thing when it happens shortly once or twice or even several times during the fight, a lack of technical education, a flaw. It is impossible to keep your foot outside of there 100% of time, when both of you and your opponent are moving. Every single fighter gets into such situations tens of times in every fight, not matter how technically perfect they may be, nobody considers such moments technical mistake.
I lack understanding that this a dynamic game? Such throwaway comments warrant no response.

The problem here is a basic one. You suffer under the delusion that Roy Jones Jr. is among the elite of the greatest fighters who ever lived. Your idolatry of this man prevents you from acknowledging his technical shortcomings.

...and you mind is closed to alternative viewpoints.

That's right. Usually. And this was an exception, where a chance is probably one out of ten thousand that Tarver could slip a punch past the right hand guard like that. An accident.
There was not one but at least three basic errors that invited the KO shot. The problem that you will not acknowledge is that Roy habitually committed such errors in the ring -his athleticism and God-given reflexes allowed him to. He paid that night. And paid again 4 months later when Johnson caught him shoulder rolling from too close. And he paid again in the rubber match with Tarver in round 11 when he was knocked onto queer street -and why? Because Jones came in behind a jab and dropped it, allowing Tarver to counter with a right.

Tarver didn't see an opportunity, for the simple reason he had his head low and his eyes still closed when he moved forward for the punch like that. One of the replays is showing Tarver from the front while he is moving for that punch, it is obvious there he wasn't aware of Jones position, about his right hand guard, about Jones' chin that was not visible to him behind Jones' right glove, and about how far he had to move forward and to the right to slip his punch past the guard.

Nonsense. In your world, Tarver KOd Jones out of "luck". In reality, Jones was in a vulnerable position and Tarver exploited this be stepping to his right while launching a right hook. Basic stuff.

Such situations as that don't happen every day, they happen once or twice in a lifetime. The only other example of such move as Tarver did, that I have in my 3.5K+ fights collection, is when Nunn knocked out Kalambay, but there Nunn was aware what he was doing, and did this with open eyes, seeing the target. Tarver had done it with closed eyes, not seeing the target.

They were two completely different situations. There's no similarity between them, except for result.

Interesting. When I propose that Jones' may have had his eyes closed and therefore didn't see the shot, you accuse me "of making things up"... and here you are throwing around the same thing to bolster your spurious claims.

Go review the tapes in your shrine. Explain to me what mistake(s) Jones made in round 11 of the rubber match that saw him knocked drunk.

Here is your chance to redeem yourself.

[Stonehands89]

look from roy's view his style is to hit and dodge...in this he threw a punch think it was a left hook or somthing it made tarvers head drop (now when that happens he was expecting a right hand) tarver then throws the wrong shot from the wrong side and wham right when roy lent back he just served his chin on a china dish...

that is a maybe the oddest knockout punch tarver did do a really unorthodox move ducking while moving to the right and shifting his wieght on to the other lef while launching the left hand

jones thought he got him but it was only tap....look in the rematch III when tarver drops a right hook he did the same type of movment shifting his body wieght away from the punching arm.

This was no fluke. Tarver is a lanky southpaw who shifts his weight to whip his shots. That's how he fights.

A technician like Hopkins is far less liable to get caught with such a shot because his foundation is skill. Roy's defense relied on reflexes. He made basic errors but was able to get away with it for years. There is a cost to that and it comes with age. More technically sound fighters protect their chins better because sound technique underpins the powers of youth... so when reflexes fade, they are not suddenly knocked silly all over the place.

Senya calls that an accident. I call it and overeliance on athleticism at the expense of technique.

[KTFO]

Srr,srl,ssm,rjj,pbf,bhop,odlh,..........................

[Irish Steel]

Tunney, his defense was amazing.

I second that statement.

[Robbi]

This was no fluke. Tarver is a lanky southpaw who shifts his weight to whip his shots. That's how he fights.

A technician like Hopkins is far less liable to get caught with such a shot because his foundation is skill. Roy's defense relied on reflexes. He made basic errors but was able to get away with it for years. There is a cost to that and it comes with age. More technically sound fighters protect their chins better because sound technique underpins the powers of youth... so when reflexes fade, they are not suddenly knocked silly all over the place.

Senya calls that an accident. I call it and overeliance on athleticism at the expense of technique.

Hopkins was more orthodox than Jones. He would throw a combination, then have his guard back in position to defend himself. Probably the main reason why Jones eventually got found out, and ended up on the canvas against Tarver and Johnson. His hands were down too often throughout his career to come under the "technically sound" bracket. As you stated, Jones relied on reflexes and feinting when defending at his peak. And when past his peak, it was disaster.

As I stated in my earlier post on this thread, Hopkins and Juan Manuel Marquez get my vote for being the best in the game today.

[Stonehands89]

Hopkins was more orthodox than Jones. He would throw a combination, then have his guard back in position to defend himself. Probably the main reason why Jones eventually got found out, and ended up on the canvas against Tarver and Johnson. His hands were down too often throughout his career to come under the "technically sound" bracket. As you stated, Jones relied on reflexes and feinting when defending at his peak. And when past his peak, it was disaster.

As I stated in my earlier post on this thread, Hopkins and Juan Manuel Marquez get my vote for being the best in the game today.

Agreed. Marquez is very well-schooled. His fight with Barrera was a purist's dream fight, and it is good to see that boxing can still produce such high-caliber mechanics today.

[Stonehands89]

...............rjj..........................

...

[Azania]

Here's one more:

Ivan Calderon.

The word "Sweet Science" was designed for this kid..And many like him of course....Ali,Jofre,Lopez etc...The only thing he does'nt have is power.But balance,poise,combination punching,angles..The kid has it all.Some people say he's boring...But i say,he's the truth..Too bad he's a straweight.Cause I'd have loved to see Floyd potshot this kid.He'd have hit nothing but air,to be countered silly..

Love this thread.

[pryorgatti]

I'm with you. Calderon is a good choice.

[JohnThomas1]

A technician like Hopkins is far less liable to get caught with such a shot because his foundation is skill. Roy's defense relied on reflexes. He made basic errors but was able to get away with it for years. There is a cost to that and it comes with age. More technically sound fighters protect their chins better because sound technique underpins the powers of youth... so when reflexes fade, they are not suddenly knocked silly all over the place.

Senya calls that an accident. I call it and overeliance on athleticism at the expense of technique.


I'll just make one comment in some very decent debate if i may.

Roy is a bit unlucky here in that he didn't or now doesn't (whether his chin declined i know not, debate either way is possible) have the ability to take a punch and recuperative abilities of a fellow athlete like Ali. When Ali, whose defense relied quite a bit on reflex like Jones, declined he could take the extra punches that went with the aging process where as Jones couldn't, for whatever reason. This makes the Jones stoppages vs Tarver and Johnson very ugly, and a point doubters of Jones can zero in on and debate from. If he retained his chin, or had a better one (again, depending on personal opinion) these fights would have ended up quite different. Personally, as i've debated before, i think he was a bit past it and went out the way of stoppage where others have gone out via decision.

Your comments are totally fair that Jones was always going to get hit plenty more in his decline that a Hopkins, Toney and co. If memory serves me right even Benitez started to get caught late in his career.

[red cobra]

Gene Tunney was tecnically perfect.

[Robbi]

I'll just make one comment in some very decent debate if i may.

Roy is a bit unlucky here in that he didn't or now doesn't (whether his chin declined i know not, debate either way is possible) have the ability to take a punch and recuperative abilities of a fellow athlete like Ali. When Ali, whose defense relied quite a bit on reflex like Jones, declined he could take the extra punches that went with the aging process where as Jones couldn't, for whatever reason. This makes the Jones stoppages vs Tarver and Johnson very ugly, and a point doubters of Jones can zero in on and debate from. If he retained his chin, or had a better one (again, depending on personal opinion) these fights would have ended up quite different. Personally, as i've debated before, i think he was a bit past it and went out the way of stoppage where others have gone out via decision.

Your comments are totally fair that Jones was always going to get hit plenty more in his decline that a Hopkins, Toney and co. If memory serves me right even Benitez started to get caught late in his career.

Agreed. Jones was well into his mid 30's when KO'd by Tarver and Johnson. Judging his chin during the prime years can't be done to a certain extent, as he never took many clean hand grenades at all.

Certainly not the kind which Tarver and Johnson landed on him, as they had KO written all over them, serious consequences or not from the effects. If he was upright after similar bombs landed on his chin during the mid-late 90's, then obviously a case can be made. Griffin timed his shots beautifully, crouching low, then firing overhand rights. It was the key punch for Griffin. But not quite "Jones should have been down, how did he stay on his feet".

Futch sure had Jones studied under the magnifying glass. Griffin was the man who gaves Jones the most trouble, up until Jones shared a ring with Tarver for the first time. Thats my opinion anyway.

Father time caught up with Jones punch resistance. Although the evidence we have during his prime ain't exactly what we would like.

[JohnThomas1]

Agreed. Jones was well into his mid 30's when KO'd by Tarver and Johnson. Judging his chin during the prime years can't be done to a certain extent, as he never took many clean hand grenades at all.


Exactly. Age, his unbelievable ability to dodge punches at his peak, and his weight forays make it very difficult to assess the Jones whiskers. Pro Jones will say it was excellent in his peak whilst detractors will say it was always glass and just wasn't tested. I sit in the middle, i don't think it was ever glass, but it would be interesting if a Hearn's, Hagler, Monzon, Spinks or Qawi put some heat on.

Certainly not the kind which Tarver and Johnson landed on him, as they had KO written all over them, serious consequences or not from the effects. If he was upright after similar bombs landed on his chin during the mid-late 90's, then obviously a case can be made. Griffin timed his shots beautifully, crouching low, then firing overhand rights. It was the key punch for Griffin. But not quite "Jones should have been down, how did he stay on his feet".

Good point about Griffin actually, Jones did ok there. Am i alone in thinking the two punches that took him out were certainly no harder than claimed? From memory Tarver caught him blind but i really think plenty of fighters would have taken these blows.

Futch sure had Jones studied under the magnifying glass. Griffin was the man who gaves Jones the most trouble, up until Jones shared a ring with Tarver for the first time. Thats my opinion anyway.

Griffin was close to the only guy that gave Jones trouble actually.

Father time caughty up with Jones punch resistance. Although the evidence we have aint' exactly what we would like.

Fair call. Father time and weight fluctuations maybe.

[jonesjrp4p1]

charlie zelenoff is the only perfect fighter i have ever come across

[Senya13]

The problem here is a basic one.
Yes, the problem is a basic one. After I have proven all your claims about Jones committing technical mistakes in that exact situation false (using multiple replays from different angles), you are coming up with nothing but irrelevant points.

[Stonehands89]

I'll just make one comment in some very decent debate if i may.

Roy is a bit unlucky here in that he didn't or now doesn't (whether his chin declined i know not, debate either way is possible) have the ability to take a punch and recuperative abilities of a fellow athlete like Ali. When Ali, whose defense relied quite a bit on reflex like Jones, declined he could take the extra punches that went with the aging process where as Jones couldn't, for whatever reason. This makes the Jones stoppages vs Tarver and Johnson very ugly, and a point doubters of Jones can zero in on and debate from. If he retained his chin, or had a better one (again, depending on personal opinion) these fights would have ended up quite different. Personally, as i've debated before, i think he was a bit past it and went out the way of stoppage where others have gone out via decision.

Your comments are totally fair that Jones was always going to get hit plenty more in his decline that a Hopkins, Toney and co. If memory serves me right even Benitez started to get caught late in his career.

I can't see where we disagree. If Jones had a granite chin and dropped a couple of decisions, or even won the Tarver and Johnson bouts, I would retain my critique of his mechanics. In fact, during his prime, I recognized his superior talent as well as his deficiencies with fundamentals.

Ali and Jones are at the pinnacle of that style of fighting. But, that style has a cost. The unfortunate amount of punishment that Ali took was at great cost to his health. Jones's KOs have had a serious effect on the legend that he was building. Both came crashing down to earth -Ali used to mock punch-drunk fighters during his prime. He became one of them. Jones had his army of Senya-types who claimed that he was greater than the Fab Four and Robinson himself. And then their hopes were dashed.

I believe that the casual treatment both fighters gave to the fundamentals was a primary cause of their fall. There are many who seem to dismiss technical prowess or confuse it with superior athleticism. I consider it a bastion of the great fighter -along with other things like heart/will and athleticism.

Jones was a phenomenon. Head to head I think he would have had problems with bombers like Hearns because his chin was without a doubt suspect in my mind (and that, as well as his lack of real challengers, place him far below Ali). However, he would have given the vast majority of greats in 3 divisions pure hell.

There are too many who think that he was the second-coming... understandable I guess... after all, power and speed are so much more alluring than subtlety. Hell, action films make far more money than films that rely on character development.

[Stonehands89]

Yes, the problem is a basic one. After I have proven all your claims about Jones committing technical mistakes in that exact situation false (using multiple replays from different angles), you are coming up with nothing but irrelevant points.

You were given the opportunity to answer a simple question and redeem yourself. Instead you choose to wave it off. In other words, you run and hide as you have been inclined to do when cornered. That is unfortunate.

Senya makes opinions that range from average to dubious to confusing and then inflates them because no one else recognizes their genious.

His imperviousness to alternative viewpoints and his immunity to reason and objectivity have condemned him to the fringes of thoughtful discourse. The moderators should create a new forum where such members can feel free to engage in their pseudo-intellectual exercises of masturbation. Call it the "island of misfit toys".

[Senya13]

Not a single word on false points that he claimed in the first place. If you were a real man, you'd have admitted you made a mistake when claimed something from memory without properly rewatching the video.

[Stonehands89]

Oh dear, a dunce is questioning my masculity. Should I be angry or amused?

I disagree with you and told you why already -ad nauseum. I believe, as do many others, that Roy was a superior athlete but not much of a technician. He was casual with fundamentals. When I watch Tarver's KO of Jones I see basic mistakes that Jones made. You see a miracle.

Answer the question I posed to you several posts ago.

[KTFO]

...


Yes. The best of the best got KD'd or KO'd, including Ali. So what's your point,dude?
Just go and ask Ali how Frazier managed to hit him several times with hard left hooks. Dude. :smooch

[Stonehands89]

Yes. The best of the best got KD'd or KO'd, including Ali. So what's your point,dude?
Just go and ask Ali how Frazier managed to hit him several times with hard left hooks. Dude. :smooch

Explain then why you have Jones as one of the most technically perfect boxers and yet do not include Ali or Whitaker. Dude.

[KTFO]

Explain then why you have Jones as one of the most technically perfect boxers and yet do not include Ali or Whitaker. Dude.


Are you able to read, dude?

What is this: ,.................

[Stonehands89]

Are you able to read, dude?

What is this: ,.................


"..................." could mean every other fighter who ever lived. Your response to this challenge isn't enough to get you out of it.

Stick to 'trolling'. Your attempts to avoid even defending your own statements suggests insecurity.

[Senya13]

A technician like Hopkins is far less liable to get caught with such a shot because his foundation is skill. More technically sound fighters protect their chins better because sound technique underpins the powers of youth...
I could talk for hours how Roy broke through this classic defense innumerable times, like a hot knife through a butter. What's the point in this so-called "sound technique" if it doesn't save you from getting hit and doesn't allow you to hit in return? It's useless pice of shit, when you just cover up your head, like so many Europeans do today, with their primitive style. There's no need for skill to be able to just keep your hands up and cover up during opponent's attack, anyone, who's gone to the gym for a month, can do that. It takes real skill to be able to defend oneself without high guard with both hands, by using body and head movement, blocking, parrying, catching, deflecting punches with your gloves, arms and shoulders. It takes even more skill to use footwork effectively, so that not to allow your opponent to adjust and time your movement, you have to use broken rhythms, always change direction and distance of your movement, and angles and level/height of your attacks. Something classic boxers are mostly poor at.

[Mantequilla]

Absolute garbage.

That said, i think Jones just got caught against Tarver.He was a bit sloppy and physically slowing down.

It was hardly definitive proof of his lack of technique.

[Joe E]

there were alot.gene tunney,tommy loughran,benny leonerd,carlos ortiz,willie pep,jim corbett etc.etc.thanks

[KTFO]

"..................." could mean every other fighter who ever lived. Your response to this challenge isn't enough to get you out of it.

Stick to 'trolling'. Your attempts to avoid even defending your own statements suggests insecurity.


You absolutely don't have any sense of humour.

[Stonehands89]

I could talk for hours how Roy broke through this classic defense innumerable times, like a hot knife through a butter. What's the point in this so-called "sound technique" if it doesn't save you from getting hit and doesn't allow you to hit in return? It's useless pice of shit, when you just cover up your head, like so many Europeans do today, with their primitive style. There's no need for skill to be able to just keep your hands up and cover up during opponent's attack, anyone, who's gone to the gym for a month, can do that. It takes real skill to be able to defend oneself without high guard with both hands, by using body and head movement, blocking, parrying, catching, deflecting punches with your gloves, arms and shoulders. It takes even more skill to use footwork effectively, so that not to allow your opponent to adjust and time your movement, you have to use broken rhythms, always change direction and distance of your movement, and angles and level/height of your attacks. Something classic boxers are mostly poor at.

....

I don't think you understand what is meant by sound technique. I think you understand my argument even less than that.

Let me try once more. Roy Jones' defense was rooted in the powers of youth. Speed, reflexes, timing, distance negotiation, etc. His natural talent was extraordinary. However, his over-reliance on this was at the expense of fundamentals.

As he aged, his youthful powers diminished. When this happens, elite fighters like Duran compensate for it with skill and their mastery of technique, which comes forward as they slow down. Ali, ever the unorthodox, relied on a great chin and the heart of a lion.

The question for Jones is not whether or not he was a technician (he wasn't and perhaps didn't have to be)... but whether or not a fighter with Tarver or Johnson's style would have always gotten to him. In other words, was the root of Jones' problem age or a skill deficiency?

[Stonehands89]

You absolutely don't have any sense of humour.

Dude!! I do if there's something humorous!

[Senya13]

I think you don't follow what you say between different posts.

In addition, the long right that Jones had just thrown in close was done while his left hand was dangling by his waist. Dangerous stuff. Tarver could have finished him with a right hook.
Those are at least 4 basic technical mistakes that Jones made.
It's right here. Low hand is a basic technical mistake. I thought I'd hear about conditions when this is considered a mistake and when not, but no.
And??
It's plain to see that Jones' left hand was dangling low
Despite the fact that Tarver was in no position to throw a right hand, it's still a mistake. I guess nobody explained to you that keeping your hands up always is a primitive and useless thing. You only need to lift them up when there's actual danger of such punch and when you are unable to defend against it in any other way effectively. When your opponent has his front arm fully extended in front of your body and he's leaning forward in awkward position, there is not danger of getting hit with that same hand in that particular moment, only a fool would be trying to defend against nonexistent danger instead of trying to exploit the awkward position of his opponent for his own offense.


The fact is, Jones was a superior athletic phenomenon who relied on speed, timing, power, and reflexes. That was his thing. His vulnerability was inversely related to his athleticism. Great technicians adapt to age and rely more on technical skill once their physical powers diminish. To wit: Duran. Moore. Jones was athletically superior to both, but in terms of technical expertise, he wasn't even close.
You seem to be unable to grasp one simple fact. Classic technique was useless against Jones from 1989 up until 2003, it worked one-way only, he hit his opponents more often (usually a lot more often) than they hit him. The effectiveness of classic technique was very low against him. The only guy who gave him trouble during this time was Montell Griffin, but you can hardly call his style relying on classic technique, all that ducking low or pulling away from a punch, while keeping hands low, awkward footwork, somewhat wild rushes, all that posing, etc. While Jones' effectiveness against classic technique was brilliant, he did what he wanted, hit and didn't get hit. What's the point of having a classic technique, when you can't oppose unorthodox style like Jones's with all the classic skills of the world? It's turned completely ineffective and useless. You can make any excuses you want, cite as many boxing guides as you want, that won't change the fact. All those skills didn't work against Jones.

The 2nd fight with Tarver. Outside of that lucky left hook, Tarver couldn't land a single clean punch on Jones during the 1.5 rounds. That's as invincible as it gets, outside of that shot the Magic Man threw with closed eyes, a big no-no in the book. Technical mistake (blind punch) beat up the classic technique of throwing a left hook counter to the head with your eyes looking at the target (Tarver's head) and your right hand is guarding your chin.

[KTFO]

Dude!! I do if there's something humorous!


Your useless speech about RJJ's stance IS hilarious,dude.

[Mantequilla]

....

I don't think you understand what is meant by sound technique. I think you understand my argument even less than that.

Let me try once more. Roy Jones' defense was rooted in the powers of youth. Speed, reflexes, timing, distance negotiation, etc. His natural talent was extraordinary. However, his over-reliance on this was at the expense of fundamentals.

As he aged, his youthful powers diminished. When this happens, elite fighters like Duran compensate for it with skill and their mastery of technique, which comes forward as they slow down. Ali, ever the unorthodox, relied on a great chin and the heart of a lion.

The question for Jones is not whether or not he was a technician (he wasn't and perhaps didn't have to be)... but whether or not a fighter with Tarver or Johnson's style would have always gotten to him. In other words, was the root of Jones' problem age or a skill deficiency?

Johnson's style was that of a plod forward basic volume puncher.He had zero finesse and was not any kind of conundrum in the ring.

I think we can safely put that one down to age\being shot.

Tarver is another matter, even though i think he pretty much sucks as well.His awkward style and punching angles may have caused even the peak Jones problems.

[enquirer]

Senya,roy jones couldnt carry ray leonards jock strap.....

[Street Lethal]

Interesting discussion.

Marvin Hagler is technically perfect (or as close to perfect as you can be). Winky Wright is another one. At heavyweight Joe Louis was perfect on offensive. He wasn't so sound on defense. Gene Tunney was technically perfect defensively. Pernell Whitaker fits the bill. Willie Pep is the most amazing technical fighter I have seen (and the dirtiest).

[hdog]

I don't see Hagler as perfect at all. I see a guy who leaps at times and pushes his punches sometimes as well. I think he moved better as a righty but punched better as a southpaw.

[Cobra33]

Roy Jones was not technically perfect.He got away with ALOT of moves that required speed in abudance.

[Street Lethal]

In his decline Hagler looked like he was pushing. He always threw a lot of arm punches anyway. This is why he wore people down more often than knock them out. He didn't have the ko punching technique of Louis, for example. I am not talking about punching technique per se. I am talking about my understanding of technical perfection. In his prime Hagler could slip, block, move, and punch from either stance. His jabs from either side were textbook. His right hooks and straight lefts were wicked. He was so completely dominant in the boxing department. Personally, I think he was awesome.

[Street Lethal]

Roy Jones was not technically perfect.He got away with ALOT of moves that required speed in abudance.

I agree. Muhammad Ali and Thomas Hearns also relied on speed more than technique. But all three are incredible just the same.

[Stonehands89]

I think you don't follow what you say between different posts.

It's right here. Low hand is a basic technical mistake. I thought I'd hear about conditions when this is considered a mistake and when not, but no.

Despite the fact that Tarver was in no position to throw a right hand, it's still a mistake. I guess nobody explained to you that keeping your hands up always is a primitive and useless thing. You only need to lift them up when there's actual danger of such punch and when you are unable to defend against it in any other way effectively. When your opponent has his front arm fully extended in front of your body and he's leaning forward in awkward position, there is not danger of getting hit with that same hand in that particular moment, only a fool would be trying to defend against nonexistent danger instead of trying to exploit the awkward position of his opponent for his own offense.
Here you go again, swallowing camels and straining gnats. And here I go again, casting pearls among swine. I would bet my house that you never got in the ring except to play punching bag. There is nothing at all inconsistent with what I said. When in close, it is not a good idea to have your hands dangling around your waist.

Roy Jones Jr. is a man, not a machine. Had Tarver threw a left hook the moment before he threw a right hook, he would have nailed Jones. Why? Because Jones's left was down past his waist. And that ain't good when you're in close.

You seem to be unable to grasp one simple fact. Classic technique was useless against Jones from 1989 up until 2003, it worked one-way only, he hit his opponents more often (usually a lot more often) than they hit him. The effectiveness of classic technique was very low against him. The only guy who gave him trouble during this time was Montell Griffin, but you can hardly call his style relying on classic technique, all that ducking low or pulling away from a punch, while keeping hands low, awkward footwork, somewhat wild rushes, all that posing, etc. While Jones' effectiveness against classic technique was brilliant, he did what he wanted, hit and didn't get hit. What's the point of having a classic technique, when you can't oppose unorthodox style like Jones's with all the classic skills of the world? It's turned completely ineffective and useless. You can make any excuses you want, cite as many boxing guides as you want, that won't change the fact. All those skills didn't work against Jones.

The 2nd fight with Tarver. Outside of that lucky left hook, Tarver couldn't land a single clean punch on Jones during the 1.5 rounds. That's as invincible as it gets, outside of that shot the Magic Man threw with closed eyes, a big no-no in the book. Technical mistake (blind punch) beat up the classic technique of throwing a left hook counter to the head with your eyes looking at the target (Tarver's head) and your right hand is guarding your chin.
Oh please. Jones and Ali were great examples of superior athletes who overcame more technical fighters. Pryor beat hell out of Arguello who was a superior technician. Who's debating that?

Styles make fights. Pryor would always have beaten Alexis. Jones always would have beaten Hopkins, at least in my opinion. Where you are dead wrong is where you assert that Jones was a superior technician or where you assert that Jones would have beaten anyone. Or that Jones was the greatest fighter who ever lived.

Only the most shameless apologist would celebrate the first "1.5 rounds" of Tarver-Jones II --and then turn around and dismiss the KO as a miracle.

[Stonehands89]

Your useless speech about RJJ's stance IS hilarious,dude.

Dude!!

[Stonehands89]

Johnson's style was that of a plod forward basic volume puncher.He had zero finesse and was not any kind of conundrum in the ring.

I think we can safely put that one down to age\being shot.

Tarver is another matter, even though i think he pretty much sucks as well.His awkward style and punching angles may have caused even the peak Jones problems.

You may be right on the money.

[KTFO]

Dude!!


Yeah, dude. :hat

[Stonehands89]

Yeah, dude. :hat

"you absolutely don't have any sense of humor."

[KTFO]

"you absolutely don't have any sense of humor."


Just go laughing in the cellar.

[Cobra33]

Holly Mims
Joey Giardello
Harold Brazier
Genaro Hernandez
James Toney(ask Iran Barkley)
Bernard Hopkins
Joey Archer

[Bummy Davis]

Willie Pep
Gene Tunney
Benny Leonard
Irish Joey Archer
Ken Buchanan
Schoolboy Bernie Friedkin

[Stonehands89]

Just go laughing in the cellar.

What does that mean?

Next time you respond to me, do so intelligently or don't do so at all.

[boxbible]

Seeing Vilomar Fernandez getting mentioned here is great...

I used to train with him up at Fort Apache in the Bronx years ago (we got free tix to the Arguello fight!) and even got a few personal tips from his manager/trainer Pete Miranda...

Vilomar is the only guy I have ever witnessed, besides Benitez, who actually slipped body punches...

[boxbible]

What's the point in this so-called "sound technique" if it doesn't save you from getting hit and doesn't allow you to hit in return?
Sound technique is the ability to not get hit flush and come back with a counter...

It takes real skill to be able to defend oneself without high guard ...
Quicker reflexes and quicker feet will allow anyone to do that... ask Naseem Hamed, Howard Davis, Herol Graham... until they slow down a tad, or meet someone almost as fast and with the correct antidote...

... with both hands, by using body and head movement, blocking, parrying, catching, deflecting punches with your gloves, arms and shoulders.
That's what Roy shoulda been doing instead of leaning back with head straight up in the air after jumping back and landing on straight legs... the textbook way would've been to stay low and step back in the hook position after throwing that right hand... Tarver's left would've flew overhead and Jones hook would've smacked into Tarver's jaw.

It takes even more skill to use footwork effectively, so that not to allow your opponent to adjust and time your movement, you have to use broken rhythms, always change direction and distance of your movement, and angles and level/height of your attacks. Something classic boxers are mostly poor at.
Then, what is your idea of a classic boxer?????

I take it you don't think Whitaker, Hearns, Leonard, Robinson, Charles, Louis, Toney or McCallum are classic boxers?

To put it simply... Roy Jones' technique was INEFFICIENT... It was never the best way to defend yourself or mount an attack. But he had such superior speed, reflexes and athleticism over his opponents as to make it moot.

When you pull back from shots, sooner or later someone's gonna catch you by stepping in twice before throwing. It's how Tarver landed and it's how Rahman KO'd Lewis. Whether they planned it or not is up to conjecture, but the fact that they landed is because the recipients were at huge technical fault. And if Jones continues fighting, it's likely to happen again now that he's not overwhelmingly faster than his opponents.

Another thing to watch with Jones is the lead left hook. When it lands, it's great, but it's also a potential recipe for disaster because if the opponent anticipates it, you can easily run flush into the counter...

[Luigi1985]

Ezzard Charles
SRL
Pernell Whitaker

[boxbible]

Willie Pep
Gene Tunney
Benny Leonard
Irish Joey Archer
Ken Buchanan
Schoolboy Bernie Friedkin

I don't know about Buchanan... he kept his noggin' way up in the air when jabbing, lunged with his right, and slapped with his hook. And he ducked way low from punches that should have been slipped within inches.

But he had a brilliant set of legs that glided him in and out of range like he was on roller coasters.

Other than that, I don't know if you could give him high grades for being "technically perfect".

[boxbible]

Billy Graham and Frankie Randall were also brilliant technicians...

[Senya13]

Sound technique is the ability to not get hit flush and come back with a counter...
Sound technique didn't work against Jones. It did work against guys like Ali or Hamed, though, multiple times, and before they slowed down.

Quicker reflexes and quicker feet will allow anyone to do that... ask Naseem Hamed, Howard Davis, Herol Graham... until they slow down a tad, or meet someone almost as fast and with the correct antidote...
Hamed was 27 when he fought Barrera, nobody slows down at such age, and Barrera was hardly a speedster. Davis was 24 when he fought Ferndandez (close fight) and Watt (far from being speedy), and was knocked down multiple times long before he slowed down. Graham was 26 when he faced Kalambay and 29 when he faced McCallum, also not the age when you slow down yet, and McCallum wasn't very fast. Jones had no problems with classic fighters until he was 35 years old, even though he started showing signs of slowing down back in 2000-2001 (31-32 years old).

That's what Roy shoulda been doing
If you didn't get it, that's exactly what Jones has been doing a lot ever since he turned pro. Each and every thing, in every fight, showing all these things many times in each fight.

the textbook way would've been to stay low and step back in the hook position after throwing that right hand... Tarver's left would've flew overhead and Jones hook would've smacked into Tarver's jaw.
Step back with which foot? Where did you see people standing face-forward stepping back with left foot and throwing a left hook at the same time? If you want to say he had to step back with right foot (turning clockwise), then that's exactly what he shouldn't have done, as he'd open himself for left hook counter that way. I don't know where you were reading such books that give such advices, but my advice would be to put them all together and burn them all.

Then, what is your idea of a classic boxer?????
My idea is Jones never had any problems with classic boxers until he turned 35 years old. You can look it up what happened with all these boxers at 35 years of age:
Whitaker, Hearns, Leonard, Robinson, Charles, Louis, Toney or McCallum
and see how their "classic boxing technique" helped them at such age against making lots of mistakes that caused either losses or very close fights against even not very great opposition.

Whitaker: 32 years old vs Rivera, 33 vs Hurtado, DLH, Pestryayev, 35 vs Trinidad.

Hearns: 29 vs Barkley I, 30 vs Kinchen and Leonard, 32 vs Hill (close fight) and Barkley II, 35 vs Delgado.

Leonard: 27 vs Howard, 32 vs Lalonde, 33 vs Hearns, 34 vs Norris.

Robinson: 21 vs Servo (SD10) and Wilson (MD10), LaMotta fights, 24 Basora (D10), 25 Levine and Bell, 26 Abrams (SD10), 27 Docusen and Brimm, 29 Dykes and Mimms, 30 lost to Turpin, 31 lost to Maxim, 33 lost to Ralph Jones and SD10 with Lombardo, 34 vs Castellani (SD10), 35 lost to Fullmer.

Charles: too many to list, 30 lost to Walcott twice, 31 Layne, 32 Valdes. Johnson, 33 Marciano I, 34 Marciano II, Holman, 35 Andrews, Jackson twice, Hall, Albright, Johnson, Bethea.

Louis: 25 Godoy (SD15), 27 Conn I, 33 Walcott O, 34 Walcott II.

Toney: too many to list, he turned 35 in 2003.

McCallum: he was 35 when he drew and lost to Toney, before that there were Kalambay twice, Graham, Curry was ahead on points, McCrory (close fight).

To put it simply... Their technique was INEFFICIENT that they had a LOT more problems in their fights up to being 35 years old (usually long before that), that Jones had. Now try to explain to me what would be the advantage for Jones to using classic technique, to get more troubles for himself like the above fighters did?

When you pull back from shots, sooner or later someone's gonna catch you by stepping in twice before throwing. It's how Tarver landed
Watch the replays again! He didn't pull from shot, he was doing everything by the book, whereas Tarver was doing his move contrary to the book (started throwing the punch while not seeing his opponent, and continued throwing it while his eyes were still shut, and stepping forward and to the right which is missing from any text book).

but the fact that they landed is because the recipients were at huge technical fault.
The fact is you have not watched the replays before making your claim, it's as simple as that. I already proved Stonehands wrong on his 4 false claims, but people don't learns from others' mistakes.

Another thing to watch with Jones is the lead left hook. When it lands, it's great, but it's also a potential recipe for disaster because if the opponent anticipates it, you can easily run flush into the counter...
When exactly, which fights and rounds did somebody catch Jones with anything serious on his lead left hook?

[Stonehands89]

I already proved Stonehands wrong on his 4 false claims, but people don't learns from others' mistakes.

You proved nothing, ding-dong. You lost that debate as you have every other and were left alone in a corner drooling over your Roy Jones fantasies.

Boxbible, if you want to bother with this trite ignoramous, prepare yourself for irrationality and circular reasoning. You may find, as I have, that it is distasteful to watch a man engage in masturbation with thoughts of another man swimming in his head.

[Senya13]

I showed you screenshots that proved you wrong on two points and explained to you where you were wrong on two other points. It was easy to do, because all you came up with was a poor-quality youtube that was lacking the replays that were relevant to the claims you made. You were the one who lost the debate and ran away instead of admitting that you forgot to look up the replays before you claimed anything on the matter. Case closed, everyone can go home.

[Manassa]

Willie Pep wasn't technically sound - he was an innovator, an inventor of moves. He didn't read the textbook, he wrote his own.

[Stonehands89]

You did nothing of the sort, Senya-Roy. In fact, I closed the debate. It is you who have failed to answer a question that was posed to you several times about the flaws in Roy Jones' style.

It is not reassuring to see that your faulty logic and ignorance about boxing is not limited to your man-love for Roy. Your debate with JT about Hearns' power is also indicative of your goofy mind.

[Senya13]

You were trying to cover up for your false claims by attempting to move the discussion to other points that were irrelevant to the points we were discussing (which you made without even taking time to look up the replays).

[Stonehands89]

Here's a replay from the camera above the ring.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

You hang yourself with your own rope for the second time in this rout.

It is plain to see that Jones' left hand is too low, and at the moment of impact Jones is standing flush with his left foot inside of Tarver's right.

You lose. Again.

Go review the tapes in your shrine. Explain to me what mistake(s) Jones made in round 11 of the rubber match that saw him knocked drunk.

[Pat_Lowe]

I don't understand Senya, how can you argue that Jones was showing correct technique against Tarver? He had his hands down and got caught with a big hook its that simple. If he was following the textbook he wouldn't have been hit that hard and flush, he would have avoided it by ducking or slipping or rolling or having his hand up. That Tarver may have been doing something unorthodox does not make up for the fact Jones showed a flaw in technique, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[JohnThomas1]

He certainly didn't get his jab back fast enough to where it should have been, but in fairness Tarver really did time his counter bigtime.

[KTFO]

What does that mean?

Next time you respond to me, do so intelligently or don't do so at all.


That's the proof that your education is set on a very low level.


BTW, Ali wasn't technically perfect at all.

[Stonehands89]

That's the proof that your education is set on a very low level.


BTW, Ali wasn't technically perfect at all.
Golly, how'd yah no?

No one said Ali was technically perfect. I did say that he relied on a good chin and sheer will as the seventies got late.

[Senya13]

It is plain to see that Jones' left hand is too low,
It was low because there was no danger whatsoever from getting hit with Tarver's right. He could only hit with his elbow, that's the only way.

at the moment of impact Jones is standing flush with his left foot inside of Tarver's right.
Quote me a book which says, "You have to have your left foot outside of a southpaw's right foot 100% of time, if you don't do that, that's a technical error". Until you do that, you have done nothing to back up your claim. When Jones was throwing a right, his left foot was outside. After Tarver stepped forward and to the right, the only way to keep his left foot outside would be to step back and to the left, but you can't throw a left hook that way, it's nearly impossible, and even if you attempt to do it, you won't be able to generated any power in your punch at all, it will have same much power as a small girl's slap.
Jones saw that he could deliver his counter faster than Tarver could deliver his left, he moved his weight on right foot, put his right glove next to his chin, pulled his left hand back, pivoted his body clockwise and threw the hook, but due to Tarver's weird movement missed the chin and hit the neck instead. All the while keeping his right in normal guarding position.

[Senya13]

He had his hands down and got caught with a big hook its that simple.
Watch the replay again. After Jones threw his right, he pulled it back and kept next to his chin the rest of the time, it was only the angle at which Tarver's left came (due to Tarver stepping far forward and to the right) that allowed it to get past the guard.

If he was following the textbook he wouldn't have been hit that hard and flush, he would have avoided it by ducking or slipping or rolling or having his hand up.
He had his right hand up, next to his chin. That's called normal guarding position.

[JohnThomas1]

Just curious Senya, can you find some sort of freakish circumstance or out of the norm phenomena for every punch Roy ever happened to catch?

[doublesuited]

Joe Walcott.

But since Stonehands would decision him by jabbing the Barbados Demon silly, I'm going to have to go with our very own Stonehands89.

[Senya13]

Just curious Senya, can you find some sort of freakish circumstance or out of the norm phenomena for every punch Roy ever happened to catch?
Glen Johnson fight, there was clearly an error, where diminished speed/reflexes didn't allow Jones to avoid the punch. But there Jones was clearly doing those things on purpose of trying to showboat his reflexes of making the opponent miss silly punches. The case of 2nd Tarver fight, it was not an error, it was a circumstance that happens only once in a while. Jones did everything by the book, Tarver did his part contrary to the book (throwing a blind punch with unexplained deep step forward and to the right), and won. Jones had punished many classic technicians with unorthodox moves too. Classic technique is good in classic situations, when it is facing unusual situations it might fail. Boxing is unpredictable sports, you can't pre-calculate all possibilities, and classic technique is a set of templates that usually work, nobody can guarantee 100% that they'll work.

[JohnThomas1]

Glen Johnson fight, there was clearly an error, where diminished speed/reflexes didn't allow Jones to avoid the punch. But there Jones was clearly doing those things on purpose of trying to showboat his reflexes of making the opponent miss silly punches. The case of 2nd Tarver fight, it was not an error, it was a circumstance that happens only once in a while. Jones did everything by the book, Tarver did his part contrary to the book (throwing a blind punch with unexplained deep step forward and to the right), and won. Jones had punished many classic technicians with unorthodox moves too. Classic technique is good in classic situations, when it is facing unusual situations it might fail. Boxing is unpredictable sports, you can't pre-calculate all possibilities, and classic technique is a set of templates that usually work, nobody can guarantee 100% that they'll work.

I must say there's some much much better stuff in that lot.

[KTFO]

No one said Ali was technically perfect. I did say that he relied on a good chin and sheer will as the seventies got late.




Explain then why you have Jones as one of the most technically perfect boxers and yet do not include Ali or Whitaker.



Obviously you're an Ali nuthugger. And even Whitaker had his special moments. Check out Whitaker/Mayweather.

[Duodenum]

It was low because there was no danger whatsoever from getting hit with Tarver's right. He could only hit with his elbow, that's the only way.That could be kinda dangerous against a guy like Pedroza, Serrano or Marciano, who specialized in elbows.

[Senya13]

The thing is it was a mid-range, not at close range, and so Roy would be able to step away or duck or lean away in case Tarver actually tried to elbow him. At close range Roy would keep both his arms in front of his upper body and head.

[boxbible]

Sound technique didn't work against Jones. It did work against guys like Ali or Hamed, though, multiple times, and before they slowed down.
Sound technique is what let Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum, the only three notable names on Jones resume, go the distance with him. There is no question that Jones, in his prime, would have been the toughest comp for the likes of Robinson, Leonard, or Charles.

But the difference between the latter three and Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum is that Robinson, Leonard, and Charles also possessed much greater speed and athleticism than the former three. And although still not as gifted as Jones, it certainly narrowed the gap. They would have been able to touch him. Couple that with more efficient moves, technique and defense and the difference would have boiled down to toughness and smartness.

And I would have to say Jones has been one of the smartest ever as far as reading a fighter and following a strategy. But with these guys being able to touch him every now and then, how would he have fared defense-wise with those big gaping holes that could no longer be covered up by an overwhelming difference in speed?

I mean, an ancient McCallum was able to clip Jones although he wasn't able to follow up since Jones got out of harms way so fast.

Hamed was 27 when he fought Barrera, nobody slows down at such age, and Barrera was hardly a speedster.
Barrera hardly a speedster??? I beg to differ.

Step back with which foot? Where did you see people standing face-forward stepping back with left foot and throwing a left hook at the same time? If you want to say he had to step back with right foot (turning clockwise), then that's exactly what he shouldn't have done, as he'd open himself for left hook counter that way. I don't know where you were reading such books that give such advices, but my advice would be to put them all together and burn them all.
I guess you never heard of stepping back with the right foot while putting yourself into a hooking position (counter-clockwise)? Jones did that part but he did it SO sloppy and wrong... he pulled back and stood STRAIGHT UP... Jones got away with it for years because of the vast inferiroty in the overall level of his competition.

My idea is Jones never had any problems with classic boxers until he turned 35 years old. You can look it up what happened with all these boxers at 35 years of age:
Yes... against the three classic boxers he met, he outsped and outsmarted them rather easily. And its not like Jones completely lacked classic technique... he just had some glaring holes... and when his age slowed him down a bit and narrowed the gap between him and his opponents' overall speed, then his LACK of complete classic boxing skills caught up to him.

and see how their "classic boxing technique" helped them at such age against making lots of mistakes that caused either losses or very close fights against even not very great opposition.
To Jones' credit, he came into every fight fine-tuned like no one else. But otherwise, your statement is absurd because damn near all fighters have a bad day. Yet classic boxers rarely got KO'd.

To put it simply... Their technique was INEFFICIENT that they had a LOT more problems in their fights up to being 35 years old (usually long before that), that Jones had. Now try to explain to me what would be the advantage for Jones to using classic technique, to get more troubles for himself like the above fighters did?
So you are saying that if great fighters like Louis, Canto and Whitaker had fought with their hands down, jumped in and out of range, leaned back a lot, and leaped in with hooks, they woulda been even better?

Watch the replays again! He didn't pull from shot, he was doing everything by the book, whereas Tarver was doing his move contrary to the book (started throwing the punch while not seeing his opponent, and continued throwing it while his eyes were still shut, and stepping forward and to the right which is missing from any text book).
A wild, amateurish swing KO'd the great Roy Jones!!! :nut

When exactly, which fights and rounds did somebody catch Jones with anything serious on his lead left hook?
When exactly did anybody catch Jones while he was pulling straight back before Tarver did?

Oh, that's right... Tarver threw an accidental, one-in-a-million unorthodox punch that presumably might have even KO'd Sugar Ray Robinson.

Stop this childish nonsense and get with the program.

Oh, BTW... better start looking for a soft spot to land because you can't keep swinging on them nuts forever... they weren't ever that big to begin with.

[JohnThomas1]

Sound technique is what let Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum, the only three notable names on Jones resume, go the distance with him. There is no question that Jones, in his prime, would have been the toughest comp for the likes of Robinson, Leonard, or Charles.

But the difference between the latter three and Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum is that Robinson, Leonard, and Charles also possessed much greater speed and athleticism than the former three. And although still not as gifted as Jones, it certainly narrowed the gap. They would have been able to touch him. Couple that with more efficient moves, technique and defense and the difference would have boiled down to toughness and smartness.

And I would have to say Jones has been one of the smartest ever as far as reading a fighter and following a strategy. But with these guys being able to touch him every now and then, how would he have fared defense-wise with those big gaping holes that could no longer be covered up by an overwhelming difference in speed?

I mean, an ancient McCallum was able to clip Jones although he wasn't able to follow up since Jones got out of harms way so fast.


Barrera hardly a speedster??? I beg to differ.


I guess you never heard of stepping back with the right foot while putting yourself into a hooking position (counter-clockwise)? Jones did that part but he did it SO sloppy and wrong... he pulled back and stood STRAIGHT UP... Jones got away with it for years because of the vast inferiroty in the overall level of his competition.


Yes... against the three classic boxers he met, he outsped and outsmarted them rather easily. And its not like Jones completely lacked classic technique... he just had some glaring holes... and when his age slowed him down a bit and narrowed the gap between him and his opponents' overall speed, then his LACK of complete classic boxing skills caught up to him.


To Jones' credit, he came into every fight fine-tuned like no one else. But otherwise, your statement is absurd because damn near all fighters have a bad day. Yet classic boxers rarely got KO'd.


So you are saying that if great fighters like Louis, Canto and Whitaker had fought with their hands down, jumped in and out of range, leaned back a lot, and leaped in with hooks, they woulda been even better?


A wild, amateurish swing KO'd the great Roy Jones!!! :nut


When exactly did anybody catch Jones while he was pulling straight back before Tarver did?

Oh, that's right... Tarver threw an accidental, one-in-a-million unorthodox punch that presumably might have even KO'd Sugar Ray Robinson.

Stop this childish nonsense and get with the program.

Oh, BTW... better start looking for a soft spot to land because you can't keep swinging on them nuts forever... they weren't ever that big to begin with.

Great post, can't say i agree with every single point but i sure enjoyed the read.

[Senya13]

Sound technique is what let Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum, the only three notable names on Jones resume, go the distance with him.
There were a lot more fighters who used classic skills against Roy, it never worked. Montell Griffin gave him his toughest fight up to 2003, yet you can hardly call Montell a classic technician, with all that posing, leaning away from punches and leaping forward with left hook and right hands from below.

But the difference between the latter three and Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum is that Robinson, Leonard, and Charles also possessed much greater speed and athleticism than the former three.
The difference is, SRR wasn't very classic in his prime, if you saw his fights pre-St.Valentine, he's keeping his hands low a lot, and leaping with punches, in and out, and when being pressed on the ropes, is getting hit A LOT more often than RJJ was hit. Leonard was a dancer, at mid-range he got hit cleanly a lot more often than Roy, also look at how poorly he looked against speedy elusive Benitez, who also is hardly that classic a technician. Charles was a mix between a slugger and a boxer, his defense was clearly worse than Hopkins', Toney's and McCallum's, and he wasn't very fast with either his feet or his hands.

They would have been able to touch him. Couple that with more efficient moves, technique and defense and the difference would have boiled down to toughness and smartness.
More efficient moves, technique and defense than who's? Charles looked rather poor defensively and with footwork, and his punches weren't very accurate or well-timed a lot of time. Robinson got hit a lot when staying on the ropes, and he wasn't very good at in-fighting, he's clearly worse than Roy as a counter-puncher. Leonard - he was better at footwork, that's the only thing he was better at.

But with these guys being able to touch him every now and then, how would he have fared defense-wise with those big gaping holes that could no longer be covered up by an overwhelming difference in speed?
He'd be able to "touch" them a lot more often than they could touch him, it's rather simple. All three had a lot of gaps in defense and made a lot of errors too, if you actually watched their fights.

I mean, an ancient McCallum was able to clip Jones although he wasn't able to follow up since Jones got out of harms way so fast.
Nobody is untouchable, even Willie Pep got hit with punches here and there. McCallum landed maybe one clean punch to Jones' five, and his punches didn't hurt Roy a little bit.

Barrera hardly a speedster??? I beg to differ.
Watch all three Morales fights (Erik is faster with both hands and feet, and he's not the fastest fighter those weights have known), watch Barrera vs Junior Jones or Manny Pacquiao, he had average or slightly above average speed with his hands and feet.

I guess you never heard of stepping back with the right foot while putting yourself into a hooking position (counter-clockwise)?
What are you talking about? If Roy stepped back with his right foot, he'd be turning clockwise. And that's exactly what he shouldn't be doing against a southpaw, as he'd leave himself open for left cross to the head.

Yes... against the three classic boxers he met, he outsped and outsmarted them rather easily.
He outboxed Hopkins at all ranges, from long-range it was a no contest, at mid-range Roy hit and almost didn't get hit back, at close range he scored just as often as did Hopkins.
He out-counter-punched James Toney, who's one of the best counter-punchers of the 1990's.
He out-body-punched Mike McCallum, scoring with several punches to each Mike's punch.
He out-jabbed Virgil Hill, who had one of the best jabs of the 1990's.
He out-slicked Montell Griffin, who's as slick as they come.

And its not like Jones completely lacked classic technique...
He not only had all the moves from the book, but he showed them every now and then, many times during each bout. It's only that he combined them with unorthodox moves a lot of time, that people don't even notice his classic technique and only pay attention to his fancy moves.

he just had some glaring holes...
He was primarily a counter-puncher. Most of these "glaring holes" were perfectly calculated feints to lure an opponent in, make him lead, and then either make them miss silly or punish them with a counter.

and when his age slowed him down a bit and narrowed the gap between him and his opponents' overall speed, then his LACK of complete classic boxing skills caught up to him.
Such as? What was the accuracy of Glen Johnson's punches when Jones was hangng on the ropes? How many of his punches landed flush, instead of being blocked, slipped or rolled with, majorly reducing the effect of impact? What was the accuracy of Tarver's jab in all three fights? 10% or less? How many punches did Tarver land flush on the ropes, instead of hitting the block?

To Jones' credit, he came into every fight fine-tuned like no one else. But otherwise, your statement is absurd because damn near all fighters have a bad day. Yet classic boxers rarely got KO'd.
They were knocked down plenty of times, and they got hit a lot more often than Roy was in his prime and long after it.

So you are saying that if great fighters like Louis, Canto and Whitaker had fought with their hands down, jumped in and out of range, leaned back a lot, and leaped in with hooks, they woulda been even better?
You sure you watched enough of Whitaker to say he didn't do many of those things? Louis was often hit with counters when he stepped forward with his combo, often knocked down by such punches.

A wild, amateurish swing KO'd the great Roy Jones!!!
It wasn't a swing, it was a left cross, that travelled in almost straight trajectory.

When exactly did anybody catch Jones while he was pulling straight back before Tarver did?
Where did he pull back? Have you watched the replays and did you see how Jones threw his left hook counter, where his body twisted clockwise and rocked forward to try to put more power behind his left hook?

Tarver threw an accidental, one-in-a-million unorthodox punch that presumably might have even KO'd Sugar Ray Robinson.
Robinson was hit and knocked down many times (while still at welterweight or light middleweight) by much simpler punches, often being badly hurt by them and barely surviving.

[JohnThomas1]

He out-slicked Montell Griffin, who's as slick as they come.


This is what amuses me, you run down fighters like Roldan, Schuler and many many others yet Griffin is "as slick as they come". What a load of utter shyte. Why is Griffin credible when others with better records are not? Because he fought your Roy, and anyone that fought Roy has to be built up in one way or another.

He out-body-punched Mike McCallum, scoring with several punches to each Mike's punch.

Gee wow, McCallum was about a decade and 20 pounds from his peak not to mention about a month off being 40. Duran (Vs Hearns) was way closer to his best than McCallum yet you take two totally opposing stances. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

:good

[Stonehands89]

Glen Johnson fight, there was clearly an error, where diminished speed/reflexes didn't allow Jones to avoid the punch. But there Jones was clearly doing those things on purpose of trying to showboat his reflexes of making the opponent miss silly punches. The case of 2nd Tarver fight, it was not an error, it was a circumstance that happens only once in a while. Jones did everything by the book, Tarver did his part contrary to the book (throwing a blind punch with unexplained deep step forward and to the right), and won. Jones had punished many classic technicians with unorthodox moves too. Classic technique is good in classic situations, when it is facing unusual situations it might fail. Boxing is unpredictable sports, you can't pre-calculate all possibilities, and classic technique is a set of templates that usually work, nobody can guarantee 100% that they'll work.
I find it annoying that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge the technical errors that Jones made that cost him his consciousness. It doesn't mean he wasn't a supreme boxer, it means he was flawed like everyone else. If you take off that cape you put on him, you may appreciate Jones more for what he was instead of what you want him to be.

However, we do agree on one thing -that Jones spelled hell for all (of what I see as) the superior technicians (Hopkins, Toney) that he faced.

Unorthodoxy indeed throws wrenches in mechanics when combined with speed and power. Jones was a master at this and would have posed problems for anyone in 3 weight divisions. Anyway, I think that those last 2 sentences of yours were well put.

Bravo.

[UpWithEvil]

If you take off that cape you put on him, you may appreciate Jones more for what he was instead of what you want him to be.

I saw that cape. It had a giant 'S' on it. I was suprised to find out that it didn't stand for "Superman", though. Who ever heard of "Stanozolol"?

[Stonehands89]

Obviously you're an Ali nuthugger. And even Whitaker had his special moments. Check out Whitaker/Mayweather.

You are not following the logic at all. If Jones was a supreme technician then why wouldn't you include Ali? That was the point.

Now explain why you believe that I am an Ali fanboy.

[boxbible]

What are you talking about? If Roy stepped back with his right foot, he'd be turning clockwise. And that's exactly what he shouldn't be doing against a southpaw, as he'd leave himself open for left cross to the head. This is all I really need to read to know of your limited knowledge of boxing...

There is such a move as turning counter-clockwise while stepping back with the right foot putting you into a hooking position and in a position to defend against a hook, or a southpaw left.

Plus, the evidence for your arguments is very selective. You dismiss empirical evidence but choose individual circumstances that fit a particular argument even though it may plainly contradict you elsewhere as others have repeatedly pointed out.

Fact is, more fighters have been more successful using classic boxing techniques honed through the decades than fighters using unorthodox methods.

Where unorthodox fighters have been successful, it was accompanied by other exceptional physical assets such as vastly superior handspeed, great punching power, a granite chin, exceptional legs, lightning reflexes, inhuman stamina, inferior competition, or more likely some combination of these attributes.

And there is absolutely no doubt that within the parameters of the physiology of the human body, there are efficient and inefficient ways to do things. This is true of all sports. Every move comes with a level of effectiveness weighed against its level of risk. For instance, the hardest punch I could throw would involve a running start, a short dip and jump with good rotation for leverage and the punch landing at the very instant my legs hit the floor. But of course, I would most likely get KO'd by a counter in this situation after missing rather widely.

I must compensate by punching from the spot with an unnoticeable pre-dip, a tight, fast rotation, and not involving my arm until the last moment so as not to telegraph the shot. The result is slightly diminished power, but far higher accuracy and a chance of hitting a target that doesn't have a chance to get set for the shot, thus making him more vulnerable and less able to time and counter.

On defense, while slipping a shot cleanly is the nicest looking thing you can do in a ring, it also raises the level of risk of getting hit cleanly. It is much safer, in the long run, to get inside and under punches with minimal movement while sliding in the same direction with the punch... all the while attempting to either parry the shot or stifle it with a block. Although not as clean looking as a clean slip, it absolutely minimizes the chances of getting hit solid while keeping you in a position to counter rather than leaning back or jumping out of the way which, apart from uselessly putting you out of range to throw your own counter, also involves heavier use of reflex calculation and muscle power.

That is why guys like Toney and McCallum can go on being competitive almost forever while guys like Zab and Hamed were always more likely to eventually get nailed by a clean shot or KO'd after getting old, tired or hurt. But, as with most things, boxers are not just one or the other... they all fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

[Senya13]

This is all I really need to read to know of your limited knowledge of boxing...
That's all I really need to know about your knowledge of body mechanics.

There is such a move as turning counter-clockwise while stepping back with the right foot putting you into a hooking position and in a position to defend against a hook, or a southpaw left.
Which book did you see such move in? Did you try doing that yourself, standing face first towards your opponent, then stepping back with your right foot, while at the same time turning your upper body counter-clockwise and at the same time getting low to make the opponent's counter fly over your head?

Plus, the evidence for your arguments is very selective. You dismiss empirical evidence but choose individual circumstances that fit a particular argument even though it may plainly contradict you elsewhere as others have repeatedly pointed out.
Factual proof consists of precedents or of lack of such. My evidence is relevant in that it shows the fighters you mentioned being troubled multiple times before they are too old, despite their supposed excellent technical skills. While with Jones, he only had troubles in one fight, and he worked them out in a matter of several rounds, ad******g to Griffin's style and being on his way to victory when the accident that caused DQ took place.
Plus, I can accuse you and many people here of doing what you just said - dismissing or ignoring multiple examples of Jones showing every classic skill from the book, and claiming him lacking such skills. Or ignoring him showing lots of skills in his late bouts (including this Saturday's fight). Or showing that a lot of great fighters were highly dependent on their natural qualities, athletism, etc, and when they got older and these qualities were dimnishing, they were having less and less success in the ring (as with many rules, there're some exception, but they are singular ones out of hundreds of great fighters there have been). Because classic technique is also dependent on natural qualities of a man, at least of average one, with average speed, power, etc, and when fighters get older they usually drop below average on these qualities, and so they are a little too late in reacting to their opponents' actions, so that the things that were used to doing stop working, and it's too late and too difficult to change their style to adjust to these changes for most fighters.

Fact is, more fighters have been more successful using classic boxing techniques honed through the decades than fighters using unorthodox methods.
Fact is Jones wasn't just "another guy with unorthodox moves", he stands out even among these guys. And the fact is his unorthodox moves baffled most classic technicians, making their style ineffective, and his basically as effective as usual. But some people keep claiming his style was bad and he should have chosen more classic one and would be more successful with it, whereas nothing suggests he would be more successful that way, on the contrary history shows he'd hardly be as dominant if he chose to do things traditionally.

Where unorthodox fighters have been successful, it was accompanied by other exceptional physical assets such as vastly superior handspeed, great punching power, a granite chin, exceptional legs, lightning reflexes, inhuman stamina, inferior competition, or more likely some combination of these attributes.
Where traditional fighters have achieved above average success in the ring, it was accompanied by other exceptional physical assets such as everything you said above. What happened with SRR when he slowed down (hands, feet, reflexes) and was fighting at higher weight where his punching power wasn't as frightening as it had been at 140-147? What happened with Benny Leonard, when he came back to the ring with diminished speed and footwork? What happened to Ezzard Charles as he got older? Etc, etc. Many people keep saying 'Jones was so good only because of his athletism and got worse as he slowed down', but the thing is the same can be said about pretty much every other fighter, they all depended on their physical assets.

On defense, while slipping a shot cleanly is the nicest looking thing you can do in a ring, it also raises the level of risk of getting hit cleanly.
If you watched plenty of fights from 1st half of 20th century, you'd see them doing many things Roy does, and getting away with it without much problem.

It is much safer, in the long run, to get inside and under punches with minimal movement while sliding in the same direction with the punch... all the while attempting to either parry the shot or stifle it with a block.
Had you paid more attention to Jones' last fights, that's exactly what he's doing a lot of time. He still uses his tricks here and there, to showboat his invulnerability, but the tide has shifted considerably toward him using more classic moves more time than he had been doing before. Because of his legs (he stands flat-footed 90% of time), he's no longer able to do many fancy things he had been used to doing (or at least he does them with much lower frequency than before), and so he uses unorthodox things less and less, as he's staying at mid to close range now, whereas when he was younger, it was mostly long to mid range where he had stayed.

[KTFO]

You are not following the logic at all. If Jones was a supreme technician then why wouldn't you include Ali? That was the point.

Now explain why you believe that I am an Ali fanboy.



I just don't know what your logic is like. Cause you speak about Roy's insufficient technique, but claim to add Ali as one of the best technical fighters. I already said that it was an open list.
If I would use your logic on Roy's performance I could totally dismantle Ali's.

[KTFO]

who would win mayweather vs whitaker?



If Roger Mayweather was able to wobble Whitaker then Floyd would give him more than fits.

[sweet_scientist]

If Roger Mayweather was able to wobble Whitaker then Floyd would give him more than fits.

What similarities do uncle and nephew share other than idiocy to make you think that one can do what the other did?

[KTFO]

What similarities do uncle and nephew share other than idiocy to make you think that one can do what the other did?


delete

[Stonehands89]

I just don't know what your logic is like. Cause you speak about Roy's insufficient technique, but claim to add Ali as one of the best technical fighters. I already said that it was an open list.
If I would use your logic on Roy's performance I could totally dismantle Ali's.

I never added Ali as one of the best technical fighters. You missed the point. Ali was not a technician. Jones was not a technician. In your original post, you listed Jones as technically perfect. I asked you why you didn't include Ali, since he relied on athleticism as much as Jones. If you listed Jones, I wanted to know why you didn't list Ali.

Neither were technicians. I hope you can acknowledge that now. That doesn't detract from their effectiveness -in fact, it is further indication of how much natural talent they had.

[KTFO]

I never added Ali as one of the best technical fighters. You missed the point. Ali was not a technician. Jones was not a technician. In your original post, you listed Jones as technically perfect. I asked you why you didn't include Ali, since he relied on athleticism as much as Jones. If you listed Jones, I wanted to know why you didn't list Ali.



Nice try to jump off the bandwagon now.




Neither were technicians. I hope you can acknowledge that now. That doesn't detract from their effectiveness -in fact, it is further indication of how much natural talent they had.


If RJJ or Ali were no technicians then SRR or SRL were no technicians too?

[KTFO]

What similarities do uncle and nephew share other than idiocy to make you think that one can do what the other did?



delete



No response, sweet_scientist?
Then there's one of some possible answers for your question: They made more $$$ with a few fights than you'll ever own in your whole life.

[sweet_scientist]

No response, sweet_scientist?
Then there's one of some possible answers for your question: They made more $$$ with a few fights than you'll ever own in your whole life.

Good point, by that reasoning, Floyd works Pea for sure :good

[Little_Mac]

Gentleman Jim Corbett comes to mind and I think deserves a mention. Although I haven't seen any footage of him (is there any?) he sounds like a real technician.

[Stonehands89]

Nice try to jump off the bandwagon now.

Has that learning disability been diagnosed yet?

If RJJ or Ali were no technicians then SRR or SRL were no technicians too?

Ummm, no. Leonard and Robinson utilized the fundamentals far more -both combined skill with natural talent.

KTFO, perhaps you should consider changing the acronym to GTFO (as in "Get The F*ck Out" of the classic section and go back to the general forum).

[Robbi]

I never added Ali as one of the best technical fighters. You missed the point. Ali was not a technician. Jones was not a technician. In your original post, you listed Jones as technically perfect. I asked you why you didn't include Ali, since he relied on athleticism as much as Jones. If you listed Jones, I wanted to know why you didn't list Ali.

Neither were technicians. I hope you can acknowledge that now. That doesn't detract from their effectiveness -in fact, it is further indication of how much natural talent they had.


Its not rocket science how a technically supreme fighter goes about his business. Watch Bernard Hopkins performance against Felix Trinidad, and Juan Manuel Marquez's style. Thats what comes under fundamentally sound, and technically perfect.

Any fighter who's unorthodox, like keeping their hands low, and throwing punches from strange angles are eliminated without hesitation. Ali, Leonard, Jones jr, Hamed. But you could say they are technically very good for being unorthodox stylewise. Carlos Maussa and Ricardo Mayorga are what you would call technically poor unorthodox fighters.

[boxbible]

And the fact is his unorthodox moves baffled most classic technicians, making their style ineffective, and his basically as effective as usual. Like how Hamed baffled MAB... like how Herol Graham baffled McCallum... like how Nunn befuddled Toney... just like how Mayorga completely bamboozled Spinks... and I suppose like how Chris Byrd flabbergasted Ibeabuchi...???

But I guess you will come back with your own self-serving examples even though these few already refute your "unorthodox moves baffle most classic technicians" dogma...

It was Jones' vastly superior SPEED of hand and foot that perplexed his opponents. If Jones had not been so fast of hand and foot, would you not agree that he could have been hit whilst performing many of those unorthodox moves?

Had you paid more attention to Jones' last fights, that's exactly what he's doing a lot of time. He still uses his tricks here and there, to showboat his invulnerability, but the tide has shifted considerably toward him using more classic moves more time than he had been doing before. Because of his legs (he stands flat-footed 90% of time), he's no longer able to do many fancy things he had been used to doing (or at least he does them with much lower frequency than before), and so he uses unorthodox things less and less, as he's staying at mid to close range now, whereas when he was younger, it was mostly long to mid range where he had stayed.
And as you say, he is now using more classic moves now out of necessity... so how can you still say it was the unorthodox moves of yore that made him superior if he now has to ditch them?

Why would he have to resort to using such primitive classic moves now that his speed is diminishing, when we are told that his unorthodoxy was his brilliance?

You are a brilliant study in contradiction, my man...

[Manassa]

Senya has been trashed in this thread.

No change there then.

[boxbible]

Which book did you see such move in? Did you try doing that yourself, standing face first towards your opponent, then stepping back with your right foot, while at the same time turning your upper body counter-clockwise and at the same time getting low to make the opponent's counter fly over your head?
It might be wise of you to study tapes of Carlos Ortiz, Vilomar Fernandez, Ezzard Charles, Verno Phillips, Carlos Santos, Happy Lora, Wilfredo Vasquez, Archie Moore, and others who used the step-back hook counter, without standing straight up in the air, to great effect.

And the reason the good trainers tell you to stay low is simple... because most people instinctively aim for where they imagine the head should be... just like Tarver did when he found Roy's accomodating jaw waiting for his hopeful left.

[Senya13]

Like how Hamed baffled MAB... like how Herol Graham baffled McCallum... like how Nunn befuddled Toney... just like how Mayorga completely bamboozled Spinks... and I suppose like how Chris Byrd flabbergasted Ibeabuchi...???
If you read what I said before, Hamed didn't have classic skills, and so despite his speed and unorthodox things, he received a lesson from not very fast Barrera. Same as young Clay/Ali received several lessons, despite being quicker than his opponents. Nunn was a classic boxer, same as Spinks. Byrd doesn't show unorthodox moves.

But I guess you will come back with your own self-serving examples even though these few already refute your "unorthodox moves baffle most classic technicians" dogma...
Again you are not paying attention to what I said. I said, there were plenty of quick unorthodox guys in the history of boxing, but none of them showed as good a run as did Jones. Because he has been combining thorough knowledge of all the things from the book with athletism and unorthodox things.

It was Jones' vastly superior SPEED of hand and foot that perplexed his opponents.
There were guys who had if not as quick hands as he, but close, and were quick on their feet too. None have showed the kind of dominance Jones has. None. Because behind that dazzling speed and flashy moves, there're plenty of classic moves and tricks, including those lost forgotten and abandoned, but which you can see fighters from 1st half of 20th century do a lot, and do them effectively, despite what modern books teach that these things are erroneous.

If Jones had not been so fast of hand and foot, would you not agree that he could have been hit whilst performing many of those unorthodox moves?
If SRR wasn't so fast of hand and foot, he would have never achieved what he did. If Willie Pep wasn't so fast, ditto. Whitaker. SRL. Benny Leonard. And so on and so on.

And as you say, he is now using more classic moves now out of necessity... so how can you still say it was the unorthodox moves of yore that made him superior if he now has to ditch them?
You are missing the point. If you watched Jones in his prime, you would see a similar set of classic moves he uses now more often. Watch him vs Merqui Sosa, then watch him vs Hansho, how he works from the ropes. The moves are the same, just there he threw a bit more counters and moves his upper body a little more, but other than that he's doing the same things last week that he did 11.5 years ago. And that he did back in the amateurs as well, if you read Iceman Skully's articles, he remembers Roy liked staying on the ropes back then already, rolling with punches and throwing sharp short counters. He knew everything he shows now back then already, it was only a matter of how much he uses these things.

Why would he have to resort to using such primitive classic moves now that his speed is diminishing, when we are told that his unorthodoxy was his brilliance?
Because he's not stupid and knows his body is no longer the same, and he is ad******g to it accordingly. But not by trying to learn something he "supposedly never had" (classic technique), but by going back and recalling the things he knew from long ago. The things his father drilled him in the amateurs, making him stay in the gym 8-10 hours every day for many years.

You are a brilliant study in contradiction, my man...
You are brilliant in not even paying attention to what I'm saying.

[Senya13]

It might be wise of you to study tapes of Carlos Ortiz, Vilomar Fernandez, Ezzard Charles, Verno Phillips, Carlos Santos, Happy Lora, Wilfredo Vasquez, Archie Moore, and others who used the step-back hook counter, without standing straight up in the air, to great effect.
Which fight and round? Orthodox vs southpaw, standing face first throwing a right hook, then stepping back with right foot at the same time turning the body counter-clockwise and ducking low and throwing a left hook at the same time? I have plenty of fights, so I might be able to locate one of those you name. And if I see anyone doing such move, I'll put a "I got an ass-whupping for my ignorance of knowledge about boxing" signature for a month.

And the reason the good trainers tell you to stay low is simple... because most people instinctively aim for where they imagine the head should be...
You are ripping it out of context. It's common knowledge what you just said, but doing it in combination with three other things you claimed, which is not only lacking from any book, but is basically impossible to be done, as anyone with even little knowledge of body mechanics will tell.

[boxbible]

Yes, the problem is a basic one. After I have proven all your claims about Jones committing technical mistakes in that exact situation false (using multiple replays from different angles), you are coming up with nothing but irrelevant points.
Here's something you wrote in response to an earlier poster when he tried to point out Jones' mistakes when he got nailed by Tarver's punch...

So, in your book, it's perfectly OK to back up in a straight line, perfectly OK to lean back to avoid a punch, OK to stand straight up as you counter, OK to keep one hand dangling by your side if there is no perceived danger???

I'm sorry but I was taught by my trainer to NOT back out in a straight line, to NOT lean back to avoid a punch, to NEVER stand straight up while defending, attacking or countering, and keep both hands up at all times.

It was always, "step out to the side... don't pull back... get under the punch and keep moving your head side to side... keep them damn knees bent... and stop dropping them goddamn hands..."

In fact, he used to tell us that sooner or later, Jones was gonna get his "dick knocked into his watch pocket... you wait and see..."

BTW... with a bit of practice, it's quite easy to learn to turn the hips counter-clockwise into a hook position while stepping back with the right foot and bending the knees a bit to get under a punch.

Rodrigo Valdez also comes to mind...

And, if you wanna see classic rolling along the ropes, watch SRR against Gene Fullmer in their last fight where he gets ROCKED. And the reason Robinson got hit more than Jones is because he was concentrating on OFFENSE, trying to take the other guys head off rather than trying to put on a fancy move to impress himself.

[Senya13]

Here's something you wrote in response to an earlier poster when he tried to point out Jones' mistakes when he got nailed by Tarver's punch...
Mistakes, who's existence is contradicted by video replays.

So, in your book, it's perfectly OK to back up in a straight line, perfectly OK to lean back to avoid a punch, OK to stand straight up as you counter, OK to keep one hand dangling by your side if there is no perceived danger???
Where did he back up at all in that situation?
Where did he lean back to avoid a punch, which punch would that be at all? Jones parried Tarver's jab and put up right guard against left counter to the head.
At mid-to-close-range, it's ok to stand straight up when you counter, if you put up a guard against your opponent's counter.
Yes, it is ok to keep one hand low (waist-height) if there's no danger of getting hit from this side. When there was danger (Tarver threw a right jab), Jones' left hand was up to parry it, after that Tarver was in no position to throw a consequent right while his right arm was stretched out in front of Jones' chest.

In fact, he used to tell us that sooner or later, Jones was gonna get his "dick knocked into his watch pocket... you wait and see..."
If your trainer said that about Tarver-II, then he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Glen Johnson fight - he is correct.

BTW... with a bit of practice, it's quite easy to learn to turn the hips counter-clockwise into a hook position while stepping back with the right foot and bending the knees a bit to get under a punch.
Doing these things all at the same time is basically impossible. You can do maybe 2 or 3 things out of 4 at the same time, such as stepping back and bending low and possibly throwing a left hook, but you can't add a counter-clockwise turning to this set.

And, if you wanna see classic rolling along the ropes,
I wanted to see anyone doing four above moves all at the same time. Not one after another, consequently, but all four at the same time!

And the reason Robinson got hit more than Jones is because he was concentrating on OFFENSE
If you watched Robinson backed up to the ropes, you often see him battered like a rag doll, not having a clue how to block, duck, slip and roll with punches properly, he just stands there and takes a beating for several seconds, before he figures out he needs to do something about it.

[Senya13]

Just watched the replay of the KD of Hansho (I only watched the fight live, and didn't watch it again yet), timing (with VirtualDubMod software) how much time it took him to throw that combination. Right hook, left hook, left uppercut, took him about 0.50-0.56 seconds to throw it. How many fighters in their prime could throw such combo as quickly as 38 years old Jones did?

[boxbible]

Just watched the replay of the KD of Hansho (I only watched the fight live, and didn't watch it again yet), timing (with VirtualDubMod software) how much time it took him to throw that combination. Right hook, left hook, left uppercut, took him about 0.50-0.56 seconds to throw it. How many fighters in their prime could throw such combo as quickly as 38 years old Jones did?

NOBODY has ever questioned the man's speed... you silly nuthugger... :lol:

And that just about sums up all your comments... but I must admit, the detailed analysis is not bad... for an armchair boxing fan...

[Senya13]

I studied Roy Jones Jr fights more time than pretty much any other user here, I think.

The comment about speed was intended to see if anybody could recall fighters who threw three and more punches combinations as quickly as Jones, and I don't mean flurries (what Meldrick Taylor, Sugar Ray Leonard or Muhammad Ali liked to do).

[JohnThomas1]

I studied Roy Jones Jr fights more time than pretty much any other user here, I think.



I think you've studied them more than every user in here added together, and we can prolly add Roy, his dad and any other 4 or 5 to the mix as well

:D

[boxbible]

I think you've studied them more than every user in here added together, and we can prolly add Roy, his dad and any other 4 or 5 to the mix as well

:D

Can you imagine, after all the time and effort Senya13 put into studying the RJJ "technique" (while losing his wife, missing his kids growing up, getting fired from work, etc...), only to find out that most RJJ "skills" don't work with regular boxers and that Roy only got away with it because of his tremendous speed, reflexes, and athleticism.

If he keeps thinking that what RJJ does is alright, then I don't know what to say... I just pray he isn't training any fighters.

[JohnThomas1]

Can you imagine, after all the time and effort Senya13 put into studying the RJJ "technique" (while losing his wife, missing his kids growing up, getting fired from work, etc...), only to find out that most RJJ "skills" don't work with regular boxers and that Roy only got away with it because of his tremendous speed, reflexes, and athleticism.

If he keeps thinking that what RJJ does is alright, then I don't know what to say... I just pray he isn't training any fighters.

Yeah, he does get a wee bit obsessive that's for sure.

[Senya13]

And some people continue to arrogate to me things I never said.
If he keeps thinking that what RJJ does is alright

[Stonehands89]

I studied Roy Jones Jr fights more time than pretty much any other user here, I think.

The comment about speed was intended to see if anybody could recall fighters who threw three and more punches combinations as quickly as Jones, and I don't mean flurries (what Meldrick Taylor, Sugar Ray Leonard or Muhammad Ali liked to do).

...You have replaced quality with quantity.

I sincerely doubt that those ~1,450 hours you have spent watching tapes helped your capability to analyze him. You evidently watched one hour of Roy, probably against Vinnie Paz, and lost your objectivity forever. In effect, you have watched 1 hour of Roy Jones -1450 times.

That is about has commendable as reading "Jane Eyre" over and over and over and then claiming to have thus earned a Ph.D in English Lit.

[Vantage_West]

Mikkel Kessler deserves a mention of modern fighters.i get your point on his all round techniques but he is a jab cross fighter his left hook is dangerous to him becuase it's rather slow (not really slow it just takes to long to get to the point of impact)

but in time im sure he will be technically perfect

[Robbi]

Techincally perfect. I've posted twice in the last few days about it. Its simple and easy to understand.

Any lovers of great fighters from the 30's and 40's. Sit up up and take notice, as well as anyone who struggles with the term "technically perfect".


BERNARD HOPKINS IN TRAINING



Bernard Hopkins walks out into the crowded floor to go through his preparations for this Saturday’s showdown with Winky Wright.

I dropped by the Wild Card around noon this past Monday to observe the 42-year-old ring general’s final day in the crowded Hollywood gym and found that I wasn’t the only curious onlooker. Fellow boxing writers Steve Springer of the L.A. Times, David Avila of the Riverside Press-Enterprise (and thesweetscience.com), and Paul Hernandez who puts out the ‘Punch’ boxing newspaper were there, as were three of the best people I’ve met through boxing, super fans Dave Schwartz and JP Husky and trainer Don Familton.

Once Hopkins climbed into the ring, all eyes were on him.

“It was beyond observing,” admitted Schwartz, a fight fan since the ‘50s. “We were mesmerized. No one blinked once Bernard started shadowboxing. It was bordering on ‘man-love’; it was almost embarrassing.”

No need to be embarrassed. Hopkins’s rags-to-riches story, ring accomplishments and old-school skills make him ‘man-crush’ worthy for many diehard fans around the world.

As I watched Hopkins jab and feint while gliding to one side of the ring and then back, I thought about gym stories from ‘long-timers’ like Schwartz and Familton, two guys who have been following the Sweet Science since before my dad was born.

Whenever they brought up watching some of the all-time greats train at long-gone boxing clubs like the old Main Street Gym at 318 S. Main St. they never talked about heated sparring sessions. They marveled at Alexis Arguello’s surgical precision in working the speed bag, or the ferocity of Roberto Duran skipping rope, or the seamless fluidity of Ismael Laguna shadow boxing.

I think it was Familton, now 77 years young, who told me about watching Laguna at the Main Street Gym.

Familton’s father, who saw Benny Leonard fight, was an avid boxing fan and took his son to the fights as soon as he was old enough to know what he was looking at. Familton, who saw Sugar Ray Robinson fight, used to hang out at the Foxhole Gym in Cleveland, Ohio where former light heavyweight/heavyweight contender Jimmy Bivins and former middleweight contender Chuck Hunter used to train.

Schwartz and Familton watched awesome lightweights like Laguna, Enrique Bolanos and the great Ike Williams train at the Main Street.

“Davey Moore, Harold Johnson, and Joe Fraizer trained there when they were in town,” Familton said. “I saw Hurricane Carter train there. Joe Louis and I once watched Buster Mathis Sr. and his coach Joey Fariello, a really top trainer, train there. That was a thrill.”

I got the feeling that Familton and Schwartz got the same thrill watching Hopkins this past Monday afternoon.

“It’s all basic fundamentals with Bernard,” he said. “Chin tucked, hands up, elbows in, knees slightly bent, weight distributed properly, stepping on every punch, his head stays inline in-between the legs – there’s no leaning forward or back when he punches or moves about – it’s just the basics.”

And Hopkins does it so well.

“What a pleasure it is to see a fighter with fundamentals this sound,” said Familton. “There’s no secrets in what he’s doing. You’d think you’d see more of this, but you don’t.

“I come into gyms all the time and see a thousand guys working out who don’t do this.

“It’s simple, but it isn’t.”

“Watch this now, watch!” ‘Coach Familton’ ordered as I drifted off in thought while scribbling in my notebook. “He’s stepping on every punch. I don’t look at his upper body, I look at the feet. He steps with every punch, steps in, and then right back out. In and out; in and out. I love it!

“Then he hooks off the jab. Another thing you don’t see done properly anymore. Look how tight his hook is. Everything is close to his body as he delivers it. His arms aren’t way out to his side. Are you watching this, Doug? Look at that, a triple jab! And he steps with each jab. Beautiful!

“Oh my God! A feint and hook! Watch this stuff, man, stop writing! Just watch and learn. Watch and learn.”

Because Coach Familton said so, I put down my notebook and focused 100 percent of my attention on the master in the ring, who was now working mitts with Roach.

“There’s nice rhythm on his punches,” Familton said. “Did you notice that? Don’t just watch, listen. Bap, bap, bap. Bap, bap, bap. I always listen to the cadence the punches make on the bag or mitts.”

“I don’t learn anything watching Bernard Hopkins,” Familton said as we left the gym with Schwartz and Husky to grab some lunch. “He just affirms what I’ve learned from the greats 50 and 60 years ago.”

I definitely learned something watching Hopkins and listening to Familton this past Monday.

Who knows? Maybe 30 or 40 years from now (if I’m lucky enough to still be around and clear headed enough to talk about the past) I might tell some young whippersnapper that watching Hopkins was about as good as it gets.

[boxbible]

Perfectly summed up...

[enquirer]

While hopkins maybe technically old school and excellent i think this can be overrated...Sometimes an urgent fight calls for unorthodox moves and risk taking which just sticking to basics wont allow....Many of the greats had great technique but also a certain 'unorthodoxy' based on their natural style and their extra gear when they needed to from come adversity to win...Ali,ray leonard,duran,tyson,tsyzu and guys like these didnt have pure technique but i think they were better fighters than old timers who just stuck to 'set old school' techniques and so were less able to adapt and more methodical.

[mcvey]

I studied Roy Jones Jr fights more time than pretty much any other user here, I think.

The comment about speed was intended to see if anybody could recall fighters who threw three and more punches combinations as quickly as Jones, and I don't mean flurries (what Meldrick Taylor, Sugar Ray Leonard or Muhammad Ali liked to do).
Quote,"When Roys reflexes,when Roys unorthodox style that entertained us,had us going ,Oh wow, when that lft him,he was a dead man walking,""I allways said thisbefore,Roy Jones is a great Hall Of Famer,had his run did a great job.Im not going to kick a man when he,s down.But I compare Roy to a basketball player friend of mine,Allen Iverson.When Allen Iverson loses his speed ,and his reflexes and his quickness,he will bea basic player.When Roy Jones lost his speed and his quickness he became average."Roy Jones used to be able to jump in and land shots.He was even able to jump in and land a left hook on me.But Roy never had the basics". BERNARD HOPKINS.

[boxbible]

While hopkins maybe technically old school and excellent i think this can be overrated...Sometimes an urgent fight calls for unorthodox moves and risk taking which just sticking to basics wont allow....
But you must take into account the physical assets a boxer comes with. If you are slow and don't hit hard, even the best technique can carry you only so far. On the other hand, owning a gifted set of physical attributes can only be enhanced with a solid grounding in basics.

In Hopkins case, when he was younger, he did not posess all the skills he has today. In fact, in some fights, he was pretty wild and raw, like in his first title fight against Segundo Mercado. If he had gone into that fight utilizing the solid basics he has command of now, Mercado wouldn't have gone the distance let alone come away with a draw. And likewise, if Hopkins was not the current master of fundamentals, there is no way he would still be competetive against these much younger tigers today.

Many of the greats had great technique but also a certain 'unorthodoxy' based on their natural style and their extra gear when they needed to from come adversity to win...Ali,ray leonard,duran,tyson,tsyzu and guys like these didnt have pure technique but i think they were better fighters than old timers who just stuck to 'set old school' techniques and so were less able to adapt and more methodical.
Leonard, Duran, Tyson all had very good fundamentals as well as specialized skills. Ali made up for his lack of fundamentals with a great chin, ring smarts, superb speed and reflexes, and stamina. But, Tszyu would have been anihilated by most greats with his stand up, lead hand outstretched, lean away Euro style which even the current Euros are now abandoning. Not to mention his questionable heart and shaky defense.

The old-time greats all had unique talents that, on it's own, wouldn't have stood up, much like Tszyu, but combined with solid basics to fall back on, served them very well. If Tszyu had a better set of basics, there is no way Hatton would have mauled him. But he doesn't even know how to dip his knees to block a left hook to the liver and come back with a short right uppercut. I was taught that by my trainer in the amateurs. Frankie Randall used it with great success against Chavez.

In any case, some of the unorthodox moves employed by very old school technicians... Ezzard Charles could leap in and out like a cobra, with the knockout blow delivered in between, like nobody could. Pep would be sliding left, then suddenly feint right, step back to the left and catch his opponent turning back to him with his left hook almost thrown like a southpaw left. Marciano had his Suzy Q and the rolls culminating in uppercuts. Robinson had his triple and quadruple hooks. Mayweather has the shoulder roll mastered like no one before him. Toney's got the jab, step, right hand which he uses at exactly the right moments. Duran had the leaping right like a friggin missile launcher. Gavilan had the bolo punch down pat. And on and on.

And they all had great fundamentals in case their special weapons didn't work out.

And the so-called more methodical old-timers would have smashed most of the unorthodox fighters provided they had enough natural physical attributes to stay with them.

Remember, successful unorthodox fighters are relatively rare compared to successful old school fighters. And who knows, maybe the reason we see so many unorthodox fighters today is simply because no one is there to teach them the real fundamentals. Maybe a whole lot of those old school fighters started unorthodox but got the right schooling from the myriad good trainers back then, and became classic fighters, better than they ever would have been had they just retained an unorthodox style... just food for thought.

[ecto55]

...............

[ecto55]

...............

[red cobra]

Gene Tunney and Harold johnson..both had the ideal technician's temperment to go with their skills...their tendency towards discipline...same with Tommy Loughran.

[GPater11093]

I like Joe Louis for a HW example.

Stable base, incredibly powerful short, neat punches, all mixed into text book combos.

Winky Wright might be a good one for a technically superb defensive fighter, and Hagler for a textbook southpaw?

Having said this I most enjoy watching the creative geniuses who do things there own way, often writing their own textbook - Hamed, Ali, Duran...

I'd disagree, I don't see Winky Wright being that technically sound at all, I'd say he is very one-dimensional.

Ricardo Lopez is about as close to perfect as anyone that I've seen in terms of the way he delivered his punches to both the body and head, and in terms of how he was able to avoid punches. He wasn't necessarily that fast, but his ability to time an opponent, and create openings for his punches both at range and in the trenches was something to behold.

Although he wasn't particularly gifeted, I think Maurice Hope warrants a mention, too. His punching technique was about as sound as it gets.

Lopez is great, he just lacks that inside game I'd say.



A wee list of fighters I would consider as being 'technically sound':

Bernard Hopkins
Charley Burley
Luis Manuel Rodriguez
Holman Williams ( although I can't confirm nor deny this)
Ezzard Charles
Joe Louis
Miguel Canto

[MarcianoIsABum]

Apollo Creed

[Bokaj]

I'd disagree, I don't see Winky Wright being that technically sound at all, I'd say he is very one-dimensional.



Lopez is great, he just lacks that inside game I'd say.



A wee list of fighters I would consider as being 'technically sound':

Bernard Hopkins
Charley Burley
Luis Manuel Rodriguez
Holman Williams ( although I can't confirm nor deny this)
Ezzard Charles
Joe Louis
Miguel Canto

I just don't understand this. The film of Burley definitely doesn't show a technically sound fighter. I know you wouldn't try and replicate his moves.

[GPater11093]

I just don't understand this. The film of Burley definitely doesn't show a technically sound fighter. I know you wouldn't try and replicate his moves.

I threw it out there because he is technically sound, but not fundamentally sound. I will explain it in more detail, just wanted to be a bit controversial. I knew you would pull me up on it though.

[burt bienstock]

Of the oldtimers I would see, I rate Tippy Larkin and Billy Graham as perfect examples of
technical boxing skills..Fluid, and by the book. Wonderful to watch...

[john garfield]

Of the oldtimers I would see, I rate Tippy Larkin and Billy Graham as perfect examples of
technical boxing skills..Fluid, and by the book. Wonderful to watch...

Couldn't agree more, bb

[GPater11093]

I just don't understand this. The film of Burley definitely doesn't show a technically sound fighter. I know you wouldn't try and replicate his moves.

Basically, to sum it up easily, is there any area that you think Burley shows any weakness. I think he has all bases covered, despite his technique not being exactly by the textbook, although it is not entirely dominated by his athletic ability (see Roy Jones Jr), it is just an unorthodox style.

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

in my opinion...

SRR
Hopkins
Harold Johnson
Eder Jofre and Roberto Duran
Ezzard Charles
etc, etc......

[Duodenum]

I imagine that'd be a hell of a thing to see, was he doing this in the gym? I'd like to see any examples of this by either V. Fernandez or W. Benitez in any fight.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this, the closest I can imagine is how Pernell Whitaker used to go jumping around out of the way of bodyshots??Fernandez is a dude whose complete bouts against Duran, Davis, Jr., Kenty, Arguello I & II, and at least a couple other televised bouts should always be available on-line to study and learn from.

I viewed his penultimate career win, and he effortlessly buckled Angel Cruz in the opening round with a pinpoint right. (He also decked Lampkin in the opening stanza. Only Duran and DeJesus had previously floored Ray.) Rather than go for the kill, he opted to put on a clinic, his usual preference when dealing with an outmatched adversary. But it was the sort of display where he revealed how he could retire a veteran contender like Monroe Brooks in two rounds. He didn't look like a boxer about ready to call it quits.

Vilomar was around 5'5" with a reach of 59 inches. His final win was a decision over Billy Parks, who boxWRECK records as standing 6'2" tall. Considering how he could deal with the likes of Arguello, Davis, Jr. and Kenty from long range, it wouldn't surprise me if he just embarrassed the bejesus out of Parks. Vilomar would start pumping his knees, then be off to your left and out of range in an instant.

Now, the following action footage was not available on-line when I originally brought up Vilomar on page three in post #42 of this thread back in July 2007, but now we have it, so anybody who hasn't seen him yet can judge for themselves. (But his controversial loss to Davis, Jr. should also be made available, to show that he could swarm aggressively and slug as well was make fleet with the feet.) Davis, Jr., Kenty, Arguello and Duran show that he could box with absolutely anybody if competition sharpened and at his best:

The opening of his challenge against Kenty:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Vilomar's monumental upset of a peak Arguello:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


His challenge of a peak Duran:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[lora]

I've never been a big fan of Fernandez.A solid enough fighter overall, but a bit of an unimaginative runner in comparison to a good number of other superior technicians at the time.

[PH|LLA]

I would say of this era, Hopkins is the best technical boxer I've seen, followed by Ricardo Lopez, then Floyd, then Marquez.

[Duodenum]

I've never been a big fan of Fernandez.A solid enough fighter overall, but a bit of an unimaginative runner in comparison to a good number of other superior technicians at the time.Again why I'd like to see Fernandez-Davis, Jr. The only running Vilomar was doing in that one was directly at Howard from the opening bell, and he got CBS's designated network star on the deck. The one time Fernandez did not run away in a major bout, he got screwed out of the decision.

[Bokaj]

Basically, to sum it up easily, is there any area that you think Burley shows any weakness. I think he has all bases covered, despite his technique not being exactly by the textbook, although it is not entirely dominated by his athletic ability (see Roy Jones Jr), it is just an unorthodox style.

As I said eralier, judging by the film of his fight against Billy Smith, he was very much dependent of his physical abilitites. He leaps in with jabs, for one thing, and that is not sound technique. He also crosses his feet, keeps his hand by his waist and in general does the things you'd expect from a natural rather than a well schooled technician.

[GPater11093]

As I said eralier, judging by the film of his fight against Billy Smith, he was very much dependent of his physical abilitites. He leaps in with jabs, for one thing, and that is not sound technique. He also crosses his feet, keeps his hand by his waist and in general does the things you'd expect from a natural rather than a well schooled technician.

Its been a while since I watched it, you could be right. But if you look at the debate between Stonehands and Senya on this thread, you see them debating on the knockout loss to Tarver, with Senya saying the punch was lucky and Stonehands arguing Jones' lack of technical grounding led him into a dangerous situation.

When I watched the footage I don't remember Burley leading himself into any dangerous situations, like Jones did and many other physical talents did. So I'd say he was technically sound, just not in the conventional way.

I'll probably have to view the footage again, bearing in mind your observations. Your generally very good, and thorough, at picking out weaknesses or mistakes by fighters.

[Bokaj]

Its been a while since I watched it, you could be right. But if you look at the debate between Stonehands and Senya on this thread, you see them debating on the knockout loss to Tarver, with Senya saying the punch was lucky and Stonehands arguing Jones' lack of technical grounding led him into a dangerous situation.

When I watched the footage I don't remember Burley leading himself into any dangerous situations, like Jones did and many other physical talents did. So I'd say he was technically sound, just not in the conventional way.

I'll probably have to view the footage again, bearing in mind your observations. Your generally very good, and thorough, at picking out weaknesses or mistakes by fighters.

Funny that Ali is my favourite, isn't it?:smoke

Anyhow, I think it helps that I'm 36 and mostly sparring with younger fitter guys. That really gives you a feel of what kind of things you should try and avoid since you just don't have the legs/stamina to get away with them. Fighting like Burley does in that film would kill me within a round. If I had the tactical and technical ability of Hopkins on the other hand, I'd be able to beat up much stronger guys without breaking a sweat.

[GPater11093]

Funny that Ali is my favourite, isn't it?:smoke

Anyhow, I think it helps that I'm 36 and mostly sparring with younger fitter guys. That really gives you a feel of what kind of things you should try and avoid since you just don't have the legs/stamina to get away with them. Fighting like Burley does in that film would kill me within a round. If I had the tactical and technical ability of Hopkins on the other hand, I'd be able to beat up much stronger guys without breaking a sweat.

I think Burley's technical ability amplified his physical talent without compromising technical soundness. So yeh, anyone non-Burley would struggle to do it.

[Tom Sayers]

Don't worry, I'm not going to argue his case for any inclusion on an ATG list but Felix Sturm is a very over looked guy when it comes to displaying excellent technical awareness.

[DonBoxer]

Benny Leonard.

[Bokaj]

I think McCallum is the technically and tactically best fighter I've ever seen. That he could hang with a prime Roy Jones at near 40 without looking silly is just amazing. In the same vein, Archie Moore should be mentioned.

[Duodenum]

I think McCallum is the technically and tactically best fighter I've ever seen. That he could hang with a prime Roy Jones at near 40 without looking silly is just amazing.For whatever it's worth, Mike used footage of Robinson as material for training and inspiration, and was utterly entranced by how Robby threw punches in combination. (To this day, he'd probably wax poetic about SRR if asked.)

[Bokaj]

For whatever it's worth, Mike used footage of Robinson as material for training and inspiration, and was utterly entranced by how Robby threw punches in combination. (To this day, he'd probably wax poetic about SRR if asked.)

Not surprising, but very interesting anyhow. Robinson was a fantastic puncher in every sense of the word.

[slip&counter]

Ricardo Lopez. If i'm teaching a kid, that's who i'm showing him.

[Duodenum]

In that final televised win of Fernandez's I saw, when he moved in, it was always behind the jab. Again, this was a boxer with a 59 inch reach, but his quickness, timing and execution were so impeccable that he was effective using it as a weapon on offense as well as defense. Kenty, at 5'11" had a reach of 72 inches, Davis, Jr. had a reach of 72-1/2 inches, and Arguello's was reported to be anywhere from 72 to 74 inches, yet VF had success with all from outside. (Duran's reach was 66 inches for the curious.) It doesn't matter how short the reach is. If proper instruction and execution are applied, virtually anybody can make use of a well cultivated jab, even with a wingspan under 60 inches. It would not surprise me though if Vilomar had the shortest reach of any world class stylist.

[red cobra]

In that final televised win of Fernandez's I saw, when he moved in, it was always behind the jab. Again, this was a boxer with a 59 inch reach, but his quickness, timing and execution were so impeccable that he was effective using it as a weapon on offense as well as defense. Kenty, at 5'11" had a reach of 72 inches, Davis, Jr. had a reach of 72-1/2 inches, and Arguello's was reported to be anywhere from 72 to 74 inches, yet VF had success with all from outside. (Duran's reach was 66 inches for the curious.) It doesn't matter how short the reach is. If proper instruction and execution are applied, virtually anybody can make use of a well cultivated jab, even with a wingspan under 60 inches. It would not surprise me though if Vilomar had the shortest reach of any world class stylist.
Lol...59" HAS to be the shortest...even amongst the tiniest strawweight, minimumweights or whatever they call those ridiculously tiny divisions.

[anarci]

Ricardo Lopez always the first to come to mind.

[TheGreatA]

Can't imagine Fernandez having a 59 inch reach. New York Times had his reach 4 inches shorter than Howard Davis, and Davis had a 72 inch reach. It's listed at 59 against Hilmer Kenty though, but it could be an error. McCallum's listed reach went anywhere from 71 inches to 78 so you have to take it with a grain of salt.

[red cobra]

59" is a bit hard to believe...it would seem that Vilomar would look a bit deformed with arms that short.

[burt bienstock]

59" is a bit hard to believe...it would seem that Vilomar would look a bit deformed with arms that short.
He couldn't pass the short arm inspection in the Navy !

[red cobra]

He couldn't pass the short arm inspection in the Navy !
:lol:

[Ted Spoon]

Ricardo Lopez was the first one who came to mind; invariably high hands, piston-jab, economic, neat and clever combinations all brought together with lovely footwork.

[Bill Butcher]

Arguello
Louis
Pep
Sanchez
Mayweather

Spring to mind

[Duodenum]

59" is a bit hard to believe...it would seem that Vilomar would look a bit deformed with arms that short.To me, they always did look awfully short, so it wasn't a statistic I was inclined to question much. I figured his quickness was enhanced by his short reach somewhat. At 65 to 66 inches tall, a 59 inch reach would be somewhat proportionally inverse to Liston's 84 inch reach at just over 72 inches tall. (I've seen a reach of 62 inches listed for Vilomar as well. In any event, it seems to me that his wingspan was less than his height. It happens.)

[orriray59]

I find it kind of funny how not many have thought of Charley Burley.

[GPater11093]

Orriray, I did mention him but many do not think of him as a great technician, as he was slightly unorthodox. I'd love to hear Stonehands views on this issue.

[Duodenum]

Orriray, I did mention him but many do not think of him as a great technician, as he was slightly unorthodox. I'd love to hear Stonehands views on this issue.Here, another very good and familiar friend chimes in with his own views and analysis concerning Burley, penned a half dozen years back. (At this time, Burley-OBS II had not been so widely viewed as today.) The comparison of Burley to Cerdan with respect to not getting hit is particularly intriguing, representative of what makes his output such a treasure to read. (Just ignore john garfield's comment on last September's "Three Boxing Personalities Over For Dinner" thread that the writer of the Burley piece is "a dipshit." Garfield has no respect for his elders!:D):

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[orriray59]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]