What Makes Style?

[Chinxkid]

Of course physical attributes or lack thereof; meaning if a guy is short and squat for his weight class, with a short reach to boot, it's gonna be pretty tough to turn him into a "boxer". But what else?

His trainer, his gym environment, the boxing 'culture' in which he's nurtured, eg: (the Philadelphia club fighter).

How 'bout his nationality/culture? Used to be for example that European fighters and other non-Americans were considered to be less 'schooled', less battle-polished, lacking the competition level that American fighters faced. This is probably much less true today; but along those same lines when we look at Latino fighters we see a trend, a boxing culture: tough, inside comers with guts and heart, not overly creative or colorful. I know this is less true today as well.

How 'bout individual personality? Fritzie Zivic was quoted as saying, "In my neighborhood you either fought or hid in your house. We went out." This could do much to explain Fritzie's style of brawling, elbowing, lacing, and generally muscling his opponents; to him, the ring was an extension of the streets he grew up on.

I'm sure every fighter is a combination of all these things. But it's kind of interesting to imagine what all goes into making a fighter's style.

Do you rate one of these factors far above all others? Can you imagine what one of your favorites may have had to become in the ring to be effective, without that special ability or gift?

[TommyV]

I think it's mainly to do as you say with physical characteristics. For example, a tall fighter with a long reach would move likely want to utilize his physical stature by fighting on the outside.

[Chinxkid]

Thanks Tommy, that's probably my number one as well.

Just wanna post that my computer monitor is going off and on, and I smell something burning, so if I don't post that will be why........hope there's something on this thread to interest and provoke.....

[Topdawg]

Physical attributes definitely dominate a fighter's overall style. Also personality or even cultural upbringing too. I mean, Ali could have been a brawler, but he's just too intelligent to mix it up when he can outbox people.

[pugilistspecialist]

A persons physical attributes such as height and reach, his good given talents(speed, hand eye coordination, and reflexes) and a his individual Temperments as a person(Combatitve, Defensive, Cocky and things like that)

[teeto]

In some cases it can be due to cultural aspects, like upbringing sometimes with Latino bangerrs

[McGrain]

How 'bout individual personality? Fritzie Zivic was quoted as saying, "In my neighborhood you either fought or hid in your house. We went out." This could do much to explain Fritzie's style of brawling, elbowing, lacing, and generally muscling his opponents; to him, the ring was an extension of the streets he grew up on?

Nice.

I think a major factor is weakness. Wlad Klitschko has supspect stamina and is vulnerable to his opponents punches, so he fights tall and at range and has become excellent at imposing his style, for example.

[Chinxkid]

Physical attributes definitely dominate a fighter's overall style. Also personality or even cultural upbringing too. I mean, Ali could have been a brawler, but he's just too intelligent to mix it up when he can outbox people.

I watched a thing on Ali last night, and while he was being interviewed right before the Folley fight, he said, "The name of the game is to hit and not be hit." Simple, but not so easy, unless you have his gifts. His range, his speed, which I always believed is a lot more about a quick mind than anything else.

Obviously there are alot of factors that determine a fighter's style. Probably too many to list, but to me these two (range and brains) are two of the biggest. Why would you want to stalk, take three to give one as the saying goes, if you don't have to? Ironic of course, that Ali came away from his career alot worse for the wear than many of his stalking opponents did.

Could be there's a term for how a fighter's personality is evidenced in his style. (Someone might help me with that), in negative as well as positive ways. Billy Conn for example, a scrappy boxer with alot of skills and even more balls, when you watch that 12th round in the first Louis fight, Billy had him hurt. There was that moment of opportunity when Joe was collapsed against the ropes, and Billy hesitated. You could see the uncertainty in his eyes. Could have been due to the Louis legend or the Louis power, but Billy couldn't even believe it himself. If he'd have gone in and tried to finish Joe immediately, who knows? But he didn't. A telling bit of humility in the cocky Irishman?

[Chinxkid]

Along those same lines of how personality effects style, I saw the first Moorer Holyfield fight the other night and still can't believe Moorer did enough to take the title away. Teddy Atlas, in true form, after having scolded Michael round after round for not bringing enough, takes a seat on the stool after one late round and stretches out like he's out on a picnic. Beautiful. The same guy who I think it was Stonehands who said on another thread Charley Burley was to train but took a pass, because of Michael's, "bad attitude."

Not to underestimate the kind of heart it takes to be in it for all you got or all you can find at that level of boxing competition, but Moorer, at least on that night, only brought what was familarly accessible. Could be a fighter's willingness to go into unchartered territory, knowing that he may not come out the same way he went in, is the difference between the men and the boys.

[cardstars]

This is a good question, cause on a related note I think that a fighters chin, or ability to take shots, also has to do with some of the points brought up in this thread. I know that many people will say that a guys chin just "is what it is", but their god-given attributes also come into play and even more-so than that their fighting mentality. Mental toughness can overcome a weak chin for a fighter imo. JMM doesn't have the greatest chin in the world, and surely 99% of the other fighters out there would have been ko'ed if they were in his shoes if it were not for his "never give up" mentality. Yes recoup-skills and stamina also play a role, but I think it has had more to do with his mentality, or mental toughness

[pugilist_boyd]

1rst would have to be his body type of course,but i also believe a fighters (want) matters i know some fighters who could box but could bang better so they were swarmers or sluggers instead.when i fought i could box farely well but with poor sight perception and a gret body attack and very good power i always became a swarmer(mainly because i liked it better)

[Vantage_West]

i think it has alot to do with mental attitudes.

pernell was a short and stubby guy...yet had a great jab and outside game(and could mix it up with good results)

sandy saddler blessed with big shoulders and skinny legs 5'9 had a good reach and pretty solid boxing skills. yet he would go clinch ,grapple and try to lift you off your feet.

deigo corrales was a immensly tall super-feather/lightwieght yet would sit on the mid range and throw hooks from both hands...even though he was trained and tuaght how to box,and had shown he could jab pretty well with his t-rex reach.

[rekcutnevets]

Originally posted by Vantage_West
i think it has alot to do with mental attitudes.

pernell was a short and stubby guy...yet had a great jab and outside game(and could mix it up with good results)

sandy saddler blessed with big shoulders and skinny legs 5'9 had a good reach and pretty solid boxing skills. yet he would go clinch ,grapple and try to lift you off your feet.

deigo corrales was a immensly tall super-feather/lightwieght yet would sit on the mid range and throw hooks from both hands...even though he was trained and tuaght how to box,and had shown he could jab pretty well with his t-rex reach.
Montell Griffin is another fighter that fights different than his build suggests

Riddick Bowe wanted to fight on the inside instead of using his height and reach as an advantage.

Then you have fighters like Ali, and Roy Jones Jr., that take complete advantage of their physical gifts.

I guess it just boils down to their mindset.

[teeto]

Montell Griffin is another fighter that fights different than his build suggests

Riddick Bowe wanted to fight on the inside instead of using his height and reach as an advantage.

Then you have fighters like Ali, and Roy Jones Jr., that take complete advantage of their physical gifts.

I guess it just boils down to their mindset.
Good post

[Chinxkid]

Some great posts. This is an elusive subject. A fighter's "want", or a fighter's "mindset", stands out as the factor that renders all bets off. So, you got guys with the body type to "box", but choose to keep it on the inside because of a preferrence to mix it up, and then fighters without the typical physical attributes of a boxer, that thanks to superior handspeed or foot movement or general ringsmanship still manage to effectively box.

Myself, I'm tempted to follow the trend of this thread that's pointing towards a fighter's mentality as the dominant factor in determining style. To minimize it, now that I look at it, does seem ill-guided.

We could look at the two most famous Rockys, if we don't count Balboa for illustration. Marciano and Graziano, guys who shared a nationality and a name and you might even say a body type, if we adjust for weight class, but that couldn't have been more different in terms of temperment. Marciano was a thoughtful, unassuming, plodding type of personality, and Graziano was a spontaneous, heroic, heart-over-matter type, and I think their respective styles bear that out.

I came into this thread wanting to learn, as I always do learn here, and I'm already convinced that personality or choice play a bigger part in style than I had previously given thought.

If we look at other fighters, especially fighters with strong personalities; (and we should have no shortage of them), in what others can we see a direct manifestation of personality in style? Pep? Leonard? Duran? Who else?

[teeto]

Some great posts. This is an elusive subject. A fighter's "want", or a fighter's "mindset", stands out as the factor that renders all bets off. So, you got guys with the body type to "box", but choose to keep it on the inside because of a preferrence to mix it up, and then fighters without the typical physical attributes of a boxer, that thanks to superior handspeed or foot movement or general ringsmanship still manage to effectively box.

Myself, I'm tempted to follow the trend of this thread that's pointing towards a fighter's mentality as the dominant factor in determining style. To minimize it, now that I look at it, does seem ill-guided.

We could look at the two most famous Rockys, if we don't count Balboa for illustration. Marciano and Graziano, guys who shared a nationality and a name and you might even say a body type, if we adjust for weight class, but that couldn't have been more different in terms of temperment. Marciano was a thoughtful, unassuming, plodding type of personality, and Graziano was a spontaneous, heroic, heart-over-matter type, and I think their respective styles bear that out.

I came into this thread wanting to learn, as I always do learn here, and I'm already convinced that personality or choice play a bigger part in style than I had previously given thought.

If we look at other fighters, especially fighters with strong personalities; (and we should have no shortage of them), in what others can we see a direct manifestation of personality in style? Pep? Leonard? Duran? Who else?
Good post, i liked that. And Dempsey may fit in there aswell. I think Tunney was very tough, moreso than simply the great moving boxer than people give him credit for. But when he did show his hit without being hit style at its best, like in the Dempsey bouts, i think his intelectual personality mirrored his style.

[Chinxkid]

Yeah T,. this is a tough subject, because there are so many things that go into making style that on one hand it's simple and just comes down to each individual, and on the other there do seem to be general truths. Physical attributes are facts of a fighter's life, but then intangibles like personality and culture and training and the boxing environment he's in also play a role. I don't know, but I'd like to get input on this, 'cause truthfully I'm not sure if this is an issue worth exploring, but just something that struck me and I thought I'd take a shot with it.

EDIT: Ha, your example of Tunney using different styles throws another consideration into the mix: how fighters use different styles for different fights or even within the same fight, but I guess that versatility we could see as just another personal characteristic.

[teeto]

Yeah Chinx, i know this may not be true for all examples, but it seems some of the more 'classy' fighters were the ones who could be versatile in terms of styles. Like Gavilan, Robinson, Hopkins (not sure if that's a good example, but he has certainly been one of the great versatile fighters imo) etc.

It may be something to do with 'ring intelligence' maybe? Thinking fighters i mean.

[Chinxkid]

The real generals in there, right T? There were alotta great fighters that only had one style; Frazier comes to mind. Joe was always Joe regardless of who was in the ring with him. But then there were guys that were more thinking type fighters as you say, more complexity to their styles. I guess boxing is the ultimate 'individual' sport, right?

[teeto]

The real generals in there, right T? There were alotta great fighters that only had one style; Frazier comes to mind. Joe was always Joe regardless of who was in the ring with him. But then there were guys that were more thinking type fighters as you say, more complexity to their styles. I guess boxing is the ultimate 'individual' sport, right?
Very much so, in a way, i really have the utmost respect for fighters like Frazier, because of the reasons you have outlined, he was always Smokin Joe and that was that. Not sure if he had the frame to really become a slick boxer even if he wanted to though!! But look at a guy like Sandy Saddler, who did have that frame, and was a great fighter who, who knows, may have had the skill to turn boxer if he wanted (we'll never know), but was seemingly enraged in the ring and just went after guys.

[Chinxkid]

This could be one of those conversations that there's so much to there's just no end. But there are those guys with the little frames, but because of other talents, quick hands and minds, and of fleet, slick movement are able to box. A guy like Paul Spadafora, who everyone knows didn't have much power and wasn't the greatest offensive fighter in general, but who's aptitude for the game made him a special fighter.

Sorry to bring the old man up again, but he's the fighter I know most about; he idolized 'boxers'. Guys like Conn and Robinson, and he would have gladly adopted that style, but had that short right arm that forced him inside. I think he was probably pretty slick once he got in there, knew his way around the ring and such, good at spinning and using angles, and even a little good old-fashioned muscling too; he did come out of Fritzie's stable after all. But to him 'boxers' walked on water.

[teeto]

This could be one of those conversations that there's so much to there's just no end. But there are those guys with the little frames, but because of other talents, quick hands and minds, and of fleet, slick movement are able to box. A guy like Paul Spadafora, who everyone knows didn't have much power and wasn't the greatest offensive fighter in general, but who's aptitude for the game made him a special fighter.

Sorry to bring the old man up again, but he's the fighter I know most about; he idolized 'boxers'. Guys like Conn and Robinson, and he would have gladly adopted that style, but had that short right arm that forced him inside. I think he was probably pretty slick once he got in there, knew his way around the ring and such, good at spinning and using angles, and even a little good old-fashioned muscling too; he did come out of Fritzie's stable after all. But to him 'boxers' walked on water.
That's very interesting that, ive always wondered if some boxers idolize fighters with different styles to them, styles which, for some reason or another, they have found difficult to make their own. And you would know as good as anyone given your old man's situation when he was an active pro. Good info, thanks for that!

[prime]

Natural aptitude naturally generally dictates the kind of fighter you become. Joe Frazier could not easily become a long-range boxer. But personal idiosyncrasy may ultimately trump natural aptitude.

Jack Johnson had tremendous strength; yet, rather than becoming a mindless brute in the ring, he chose to be a technician, one of the very greatest of them all.

Happenstance is important, too: Tyson developed the peek-a-boo because his trainer was D'Amato. Had he been trained by Dick Saddler, who was enamored of Foreman's power, he might have never become the proficient puncher he was, but simply a power-happy slugger.

In a word, your destiny makes your style, if you will: if you are destined to become Ali, you will develop into Ali out of a combination of your circumstances, physical ability and what makes you tick. Rudy Clay never became a champion, though Ali's brother, because the Rudy Clays of the world don't become Muhammad Ali.

[teeto]

Natural aptitude naturally generally dictates the kind of fighter you become. Joe Frazier could not easily become a long-range boxer. But personal idiosyncrasy may ultimately trump natural aptitude.

Jack Johnson had tremendous strength; yet, rather than becoming a mindless brute in the ring, he chose to be a technician, one of the very greatest of them all.

Happenstance is important, too: Tyson developed the peek-a-boo because his trainer was D'Amato. Had he been trained by Dick Saddler, who was enamored of Foreman's power, he might have never become the proficient puncher he was, but simply a power-happy slugger.

In a word, your destiny makes your style, if you will: if you are destined to become Ali, you will develop into Ali out of a combination of your circumstances, physical ability and what makes you tick. Rudy Clay never became a champion, though Ali's brother, because the Rudy Clays of the world don't become Muhammad Ali.
Very good, greatness is just greatness at the end of it all.

[Chinxkid]

Natural aptitude naturally generally dictates the kind of fighter you become. Joe Frazier could not easily become a long-range boxer. But personal idiosyncrasy may ultimately trump natural aptitude.

Jack Johnson had tremendous strength; yet, rather than becoming a mindless brute in the ring, he chose to be a technician, one of the very greatest of them all.

Happenstance is important, too: Tyson developed the peek-a-boo because his trainer was D'Amato. Had he been trained by Dick Saddler, who was enamored of Foreman's power, he might have never become the proficient puncher he was, but simply a power-happy slugger.

In a word, your destiny makes your style, if you will: if you are destined to become Ali, you will develop into Ali out of a combination of your circumstances, physical ability and what makes you tick. Rudy Clay never became a champion, though Ali's brother, because the Rudy Clays of the world don't become Muhammad Ali.

Alotta great points, Prime. Thanks. The influence a trainer has on a fighter is one that you brought into the discussion. Tyson, even with all that hate, a natural tendency to throw what he called punches with, "bad intentions," without that techincal proficiency, wouldn't have been half the fighter that he was.

[prime]

Alotta great points, Prime. Thanks. The influence a trainer has on a fighter is one that you brought into the discussion. Tyson, even with all that hate, a natural tendency to throw what he called punches with, "bad intentions," without that techincal proficiency, wouldn't have been half the fighter that he was.

Thanx, buddy. I would add that, once a performer reaches the threshold of greatness, whatever his field, he (or she) begins to feed on something on a higher level as he feels he is pulling ahead of the pack and there are few or no precedents to fall back on. At this point he begins to have "conversations with God", securely feeling his way forward to fulfill his destiny. It is what Elvis, the Beatles, Nolan Ryan, Joe Montana, Michael Jordan and so many other greats have done. They eventually create something that wasn't there before.

I have heard it said Ali paid little heed to Dundee and that he basically trained himself. Of course, he was taught the basics and from that took what he wished based on his personal idiosyncrasy, polished that through arduous work and developed his own style.

Perhaps no trainer is given greater credit for developing a great than Jack Blackburn, Louis' trainer. Louis himself humbly said, "Chappie made a fighter out of me." But I am sure, in the end, only Louis made it happen for Louis, and if no heavyweight has ever again displayed the Bomber's unique patient, lethal stalking style, it is on account of Joe's unique heart of a champion.

[Chinxkid]

Thanx, buddy. I would add that, once a performer reaches the threshold of greatness, whatever his field, he (or she) begins to feed on something on a higher level as he feels he is pulling ahead of the pack and there are few or no precedents to fall back on. At this point he begins to have "conversations with God", securely feeling his way forward to fulfill his destiny. It is what Elvis, the Beatles, Nolan Ryan, Joe Montana, Michael Jordan and so many other greats have done. They eventually create something that wasn't there before.

When it's working, whatever it is you're doing that is, you are riding a magical wave, and actually have trouble remembering what it was like when it wasn't. And the prospects of you losing that state of grace seem remote and not real.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about those times in your life when it's not working, when you're all thumbs and missteps and you couldn't pick the winner between an iceberg and the Titantic.

[Stonehands89]

Really a great thread by Chinxkid. An intelligent and compelling conversation by all of the above.

I'd agree that body structure is the practical determiner. If I'm long and tall and have a skinny neck and a narrow chin, i'm gonna fight from range and develop legs like Ginger Rogers. If God gave me a strong back, a shock absorber neck, big legs, and a short stature, I'm gonna have me some ribs at the Friday night fights.

Athleticism is also a factor. If you have demon speed and the reflexes of a cat, why not get shakespearean and "hit but don't be hit?" Why risk brain damage? Some guys however have no choice because they have neither the speed nor the capability to fight otherwise. Marciano was asked how he was going to deal with Louis's jab. His answer? I'm going to have to just take it.

The trainer's influence is also very important. Most trainers are not Dundee types or Arcel types, who allow the fighter to develop naturally and make suggestions (in the former's case) or adjustments (in the latter's case). Most trainers are "my way or the highway types" -stubborn and ornery.

Disposition may be the most important. But what is "disposition" -the willingness to accept punishment? Why would someone be willing to accept punishment? I'd say that the a fighter's upbringing, early childhood, socio-economic class, juvenile peer group, self-image and self-esteem are primary determinants in this question. I think that we can safely develop a hypothesis based on this. There are exceptions to be sure, but there also may be a significant relationship between these factors, which I will shear down to "level of anger" and liklihood to become a "boxer".

Most guys take up boxing because they have a hole in them. Let's be honest. For most, at least historically, that hole was put there by deprivation. For some, it is the need to compete.

Within boxing itself, some guys are willing to accept punishment, even inviting it, and they fight as if their lives depended on it. Latino fighters are not known to have come from anything but desperate circumstances. Duran is the norm, Barrera is the exception.

I would venture to you that "level of anger" is inversely related to "the shakespearean, stick and move style"

............
This smells like an article. I'm going to develop this. Any suggestions or comments?

[prime]

I would venture to you that "level of anger" is inversely related to "the shakespearean, stick and move style"

I would venture to add the Shakespearean style is directly related to how highly a fighter esteems his own intellect.

[Chinxkid]

Really a great thread by Chinxkid. An intelligent and compelling conversation by all of the above.

I'd agree that body structure is the practical determiner. If I'm long and tall and have a skinny neck and a narrow chin, i'm gonna fight from range and develop legs like Ginger Rogers. If God gave me a strong back, a shock absorber neck, big legs, and a short stature, I'm gonna have me some ribs at the Friday night fights.

Athleticism is also a factor. If you have demon speed and the reflexes of a cat, why not get shakespearean and "hit but don't be hit?" Why risk brain damage? Some guys however have no choice because they have neither the speed nor the capability to fight otherwise. Marciano was asked how he was going to deal with Louis's jab. His answer? I'm going to have to just take it.

The trainer's influence is also very important. Most trainers are not Dundee types or Arcel types, who allow the fighter to develop naturally and make suggestions (in the former's case) or adjustments (in the latter's case). Most trainers are "my way or the highway types" -stubborn and ornery.

Disposition may be the most important. But what is "disposition" -the willingness to accept punishment? Why would someone be willing to accept punishment? I'd say that the a fighter's upbringing, early childhood, socio-economic class, juvenile peer group, self-image and self-esteem are primary determinants in this question. I think that we can safely develop a hypothesis based on this. There are exceptions to be sure, but there also may be a significant relationship between these factors, which I will shear down to "level of anger" and liklihood to become a "boxer".

Most guys take up boxing because they have a hole in them. Let's be honest. For most, at least historically, that hole was put there by deprivation. For some, it is the need to compete.

Within boxing itself, some guys are willing to accept punishment, even inviting it, and they fight as if their lives depended on it. Latino fighters are not known to have come from anything but desperate circumstances. Duran is the norm, Barrera is the exception.

I would venture to you that "level of anger" is inversely related to "the shakespearean, stick and move style"

............
This smells like an article. I'm going to develop this. Any suggestions or comments?
Great post buddy, great illumination. The only advice I would give you is what occurred to me after I started this thread, and that was that I went about it backwards. Instead of taking all of the factors that go in to making style and then trying to find fighters to use as examples, it might have been more illuminating to look at specific fighters, fighters with styles that jump out at you for whatever reasons, and then analyze what factors in their lives, their physical makeup, their backgrounds and dispositions and see how those things came out in their styles.

[Stonehands89]

I would venture to add the Shakespearean style is directly related to how highly a fighter esteems his own intellect.
a great point.

[Stonehands89]

Great post buddy, great illumination. The only advice I would give you is what occurred to me after I started this thread, and that was that I went about it backwards. Instead of taking all of the factors that go in to making style and then trying to find fighters to use as examples, it might have been more illuminating to look at specific fighters, fighters with styles that jump out at you for whatever reasons, and then analyze what factors in their lives, their physical makeup, their backgrounds and dispositions and see how those things came out in their styles.
Yes, thank you.

[Chinxkid]

Yeah, I'd say a mixture of both would be optimal, a combination of inductive and deductive reasoing, and I ain't no scientist!, would get us close. Cross back and forth and you might be onto something.