Who were the real pioneers of boxing technique?

[janitor]

There has been a lot of talk on this forum recently about certain boxers pioneering modern boxing methods.

Here I ask for examples but I also ask that you justify them. Why do you think that the boxer in question was a pioneer?

Personaly I have recently been looking into which fighters were seen as pioneers in their day. I have some names but I will wait to hear yours before I suggest them.

[McGrain]

I'll get the ball rolling with Corbett. A big man who knew how to move he also abandoned the guard as crucial to defence, moving and slipping punches. He also used "straight-arm" punches in his offense.

Basically I would argue that he was the first big man who knew how to not get hit, and for me, even though it could be argued that Jackson was actually the more scientific puncher, that makes Corbett a proper pioneer.

[janitor]

Basically I would argue that he was the first big man who knew how to not get hit.

While the rest of your post is verry solid I doubt this observation.

There has been an interest in "not getting hit" among boxers since the sport was born.

[Marciano Frazier]

I'll get the ball rolling with Corbett. A big man who knew how to move he also abandoned the guard as crucial to defence, moving and slipping punches. He also used "straight-arm" punches in his offense.

Basically I would argue that he was the first big man who knew how to not get hit, and for me, even though it could be argued that Jackson was actually the more scientific puncher, that makes Corbett a proper pioneer. Corbett is also often credited with inventing the left hook as we know it.

[McGrain]

While the rest of your post is verry solid I doubt this observation.

There has been an interest in "not getting hit" among boxers since the sport was born.

Hmmmm. Yeah, OK, but an interest and being able to achieve it are surely a bit different?

Thing is, there are stories in boxing of guys "taking a knee" and feigning injury to avoid getting hit, specially in the days when this "only" resulted in the end of the round as opposed to dropping points...Corbett could get out of the way, even counterpunch, perhaps , whilst doing so - he revolutionised the manner rather than the desire.

[McGrain]

Ali invented skill and then Lewis invented size.

:lol:

Nice to hear you giving these boys credit for something...

[cross_trainer]

I'll get the ball rolling with Corbett. A big man who knew how to move he also abandoned the guard as crucial to defence, moving and slipping punches. He also used "straight-arm" punches in his offense.

Basically I would argue that he was the first big man who knew how to not get hit, and for me, even though it could be argued that Jackson was actually the more scientific puncher, that makes Corbett a proper pioneer.

Corbett's defense is essentially textbook 1880's/1890's stuff. I wouldn't say that it was especially revolutionary--and people have been avoiding punches for ages. :D

[McGrain]

Corbett's defense is essentially textbook 1880's/1890's stuff. I wouldn't say that it was especially revolutionary--and people have been avoiding punches for ages. :D

Well I appear to stand corrected!

What areas, if any, do you think Corbett was a pioneer?

[cross_trainer]

Well I appear to stand corrected!

What areas, if any, do you think Corbett was a pioneer?
I don't know of any. I tend to doubt that there are many legendary figures who are responsible for innovations. Often, they may be the first to use them on a wide scale, but I suspect that their abilities stem from the invention of someone else--an anonymous coach, sparring partner, or trainer.

Corbett's left long-range hook against Courtney seems like a conventional (for the time) left hand swing a la Donovan.

[McGrain]

I don't know of any. I tend to doubt that there are many legendary figures who are responsible for innovations. Often, they may be the first to use them on a wide scale, but I suspect that their abilities stem from the invention of someone else--an anonymous coach, sparring partner, or trainer.

Corbett's left long-range hook against Courtney seems like a conventional (for the time) left hand swing a la Donovan.

Very interesting. Here are a short list of my possible misconceptions about Corbett.

1) - His defence was comprised of movement and slipping to a greater extent than his peers (the other big men of the era). Those guys tended towards a defense comprised of guarding against punches, positioning in the clinches they tended to initiate to avoid taking punches at range.

2) - He introduced to the big guys the notion of jab as something other than a range-finder.

3) - He was one of the first genuine counterpunchers.

4) - He hit straighter

5) - He shortened up the hook.

Disabuse me!

Here's a wee bit from the San Francisco Evening Post on a young Corbett: Corbett's defece was beautiful. He is one of the cleverest with both hands and legs that has been seen in this town. He has a wonderful way of getting back from a drive or counter.

Who would these guys have seen in the same sort of class defencivley? Mace maybe?

And Corbett himself on his hand problem: It is not as bad for me. I hit straighter and have been working on hitting straighter.

[cross_trainer]

Very interesting. Here are a short list of my possible misconceptions about Corbett.

1) - His defence was comprised of movement and slipping to a greater extent than his pioneers (the other big men of the era). Those guys tended towards a defense comprised of guarding against punches, positioning in the clinches they tended to initiate to avoid taking punches at range.

2) - He introduced to the big guys the notion of jab as something other than a range-finder.

3) - He was one of the first genuine counterpunchers.

4) - He hit straighter

5) - He shortened up the hook.

Disabuse me!

Here's a wee bit from the San Francisco Evening Post on a young Corbett: Corbett's defece was beautiful. He is one of the cleverest with both hands and legs that has been seen in this town. He has a wonderful way of getting back from a drive or counter.

Who would these guys have seen in the same sort of class defencivley? Mace maybe?

And Corbett himself on his hand problem: It is not as bad for me. I hit straighter and have been working on hitting straighter.

1. Edwards ducked much as Corbett did (from the waist, as Corbett did) in his manual, although he didn't go to the left as much when doing so. In most manuals, they recommend moving the head and body to one side to avoid a punch.

2. The jab wasn't a range finder at all--quite the opposite. It was much more powerful than the modern jab, and was closest to a modern fencing lunge.

3. Counterpunching (and its ugly younger brother feinting) was more important in early boxing than in modern boxing, since punches counted for more and combination punching was de-emphasized.

4. Corbett's era coincided with an era of round punching. In fact, for almost a century from 1800 onward round punches were never mentioned in any of the manuals I've seen. Any blows that were not straight as an arrow were considered unscientific (even the uppercut was "unscientific", but was considered too useful to discard anyway). The widening stance and adaptation to gloves caused "rounding blows" to become more and more relied upon as the late 19th century rolled on.

5. Couldn't tell you, since it's impossible to tell how much Donovan's generation "wound up" their rounding blows. Corbett's hook didn't seem much different from his predecessors, except that it may have been used at slightly closer range.



Corbett may have been a defensive wizard, but he was using the same techniques that two or three generations before him used...much like Mayweather or Toney.

[McGrain]

.

[McGrain]

1. Edwards ducked much as Corbett did (from the waist, as Corbett did) in his manual, although he didn't go to the left as much when doing so. In most manuals, they recommend moving the head and body to one side to avoid a punch.

This is very interesting to me as I had Corbett down as a slider rather than a ducker. That's firmly on board.

2. The jab wasn't a range finder at all--quite the opposite. It was much more powerful than the modern jab, and was closest to a modern fencing lunge


3. Counterpunching (and its ugly younger brother feinting) was more important in early boxing than in modern boxing, since punches counted for more and combination punching was de-emphasized.

These two are counter-intuative for me...the jab was a lunge but counter-punching was at a premium...seems very much like "asking for it".

4. Corbett's era coincided with an era of round punching. In fact, for almost a century from 1800 onward round punches were never mentioned in any of the manuals I've seen. Any blows that were not straight as an arrow were considered unscientific (even the uppercut was "unscientific", but was considered too useful to discard anyway). The widening stance and adaptation to gloves caused "rounding blows" to become more and more relied upon as the late 19th century rolled on.

So unless i've misunderstood, you see Corbett's straightening up of punches as something that was "occuring" rather than pioneered - and that any sense of Corbett's driving the change was down more to his status than any real inovation?

5. Couldn't tell you, since it's impossible to tell how much Donovan's generation "wound up" their rounding blows. Corbett's hook didn't seem much different from his predecessors, except that it may have been used at slightly closer range.

In isolation or as part of a wider movement? If it was the case that he did it in isolation would you consider him a pioneer in this area?



Corbett may have been a defensive wizard, but he was using the same techniques that two or three generations before him used...much like Mayweather or Toney.

Was there not a sense in which Corbett was seen as "odd" in terms of his style early on? If so, why do you think this was?

[McGrain]

Double post.

Let me just take this opportunity to say I have the best avatar on ESB.

[janitor]

Hmmmm. Yeah, OK, but an interest and being able to achieve it are surely a bit different?

Thing is, there are stories in boxing of guys "taking a knee" and feigning injury to avoid getting hit, specially in the days when this "only" resulted in the end of the round as opposed to dropping points...Corbett could get out of the way, even counterpunch, perhaps , whilst doing so - he revolutionised the manner rather than the desire.

OK

I wouls suggest that Young Griffo (a contemporary of Corbett) was far superior defensively.

[McGrain]

I wouls suggest that Young Griffo (a contemporary of Corbett) was far superior defensively.


Let's hear about why. What was he especially good at and what was he first at?

[janitor]

Let's hear about why. What was he especially good at and what was he first at?

Ha ha ha

Knobody is quite sure.

He was good at not getting hit.

Pedlar Palmer was considerd to be a defensive genius of the era. When he fought Griffo ringside reporters said that neither combatant landed a significant punch on the other in the entire fight!!!!

Griffo was more talented than George Dixon, Kid Lavigne, and Joe Gans. He split series with them and somtimes enbarased them despite being an intermitent alchoholic.

He had the talent to be the all time pound for pound No1.

[McGrain]

Pedlar Palmer was considerd to be a defensive genius of the era. When he fought Griffo ringside reporters said that neither combatant landed a significant punch on the other in the entire fight!!!!

Sounds like a real bore fest! Wonder what the general forum would make of something like that...to be fair to Corbett it sounds like he spent a lot of time in the danger zone or just outside and with judge of the range. He often clinched, it seems, to score with a punch whilst entering the clinch.

My point is that he was aggressive whilst being defensive.

[cross_trainer]

This is very interesting to me as I had Corbett down as a slider rather than a ducker. That's firmly on board.



These two are counter-intuative for me...the jab was a lunge but counter-punching was at a premium...seems very much like "asking for it".



So unless i've misunderstood, you see Corbett's straightening up of punches as something that was "occuring" rather than pioneered - and that any sense of Corbett's driving the change was down more to his status than any real inovation?

Actually, I'd see Corbett as using rounder punches than fighters did a generation ago. He was, as you say, part of a wider movement at the time and one of the most prominent figures to use round blows, but Sullivan had already done so in the 1880's (along with Donovan) and was famous for it. Most fighters' punches during the 1870's and 1880's were straight as an arrow.

[Shake]

Duran... invented murderous intent? >.>

[Dempsey1238]

I think Dempsey invented murderous intent lol.

As for a REAL pioneer, Daniel Mendoza and John Jackson. These guys started it all.

[janitor]

One fighter who was verry much seen as a pioneer by the press at the time was Terry McGovern. Nobody had seen a fast finisher like him before.

[achillesthegreat]

No one.

Boxing skill has been around since day one. I'm talking about quality skill. Look at Corbett v Fitz and you'll see Corbett jabbing to the body and Fitz finishing him with his solar plexus punch - quality moves. However their technique left much to be desired.

Man continuosly trys to find the most efficient and effective way to do something. Boxing entered its formative years as soon as gloves were put on.

The first real sign I saw of boxing entering its best was Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney. Right there you had the epitomy of offensive and defensive footwork. Jack could cut that ring off something special and Gene could twist and turn something special. Both had technically correct footwork, which was educated. From then on footwork I believe was pretty much done and dusted.

Guards have changed based on many things i.e. number of rounds, size of gloves and thoughts of how to best approach defence. You look at Dempsey-Tunney and you'll see Jack use half/cross guard and Tunney use no guard. The real change was hands up and hands down but even then in an era where guys mainly had their hands down you'll find some with their hands up. Vica versa in an era where guys mainly have their hands up you'll find some with their hands down.

No one boxer has been a pioneer. Even now boxers are all different in their style, approach and even technique.

[cross_trainer]

I think Dempsey invented murderous intent lol.

As for a REAL pioneer, Daniel Mendoza and John Jackson. These guys started it all.
Actually, Mendoza may be correct. He created an entire system that was followed later on, and is credited as such...unfortunately, little of it has made its way to the modern boxing armory.

[Luigi1985]

Here are some fighters who were very important:


Daniel Mendoza
John L. Sullivan
James J. Corbett
Gene Tunney
Ezzard Charles
Muhammad Ali

[janitor]

[quote=Luigi1985]Here are some fighters who were very important:


Daniel Mendoza
John L. Sullivan
James J. Corbett


The first three I would tend to agree with


Gene Tunney
Ezzard Charles
Muhammad Ali


The second three I am not so sure about.

[Luigi1985]

[quote]


The first three I would tend to agree with



The second three I am not so sure about.



I thaught generally for the HW scene, Tunney showed that a LHW could be very successful at HW, he showed brilliant skills and very good footwork, with Charles it was the same, Ali was a big man for his time and he showed how important footwork, technique in general and speed is (compared to power)...

[janitor]

This article written after McGovern lost the title credits him with revolutionising boxing technique.

[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] [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] [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]
I thaught generally for the HW scene, Tunney showed that a LHW could be very successful at HW, he showed brilliant skills and very good footwork, with Charles it was the same, Ali was a big man for his time and he showed how important footwork, technique in general and speed is (compared to power)...

But wern't they just doing what other people had done before?

[Zakman]

I'll get the ball rolling with Corbett. A big man who knew how to move he also abandoned the guard as crucial to defence, moving and slipping punches. He also used "straight-arm" punches in his offense.

Basically I would argue that he was the first big man who knew how to not get hit, and for me, even though it could be argued that Jackson was actually the more scientific puncher, that makes Corbett a proper pioneer.
This has certainly been my understanding, and I would add it tends to be supported by much of the original source material in the excellent book on Corbett I have been reading by Adam Pollack. I think it is historically accurate to say that Corbett was an innovator of many of these advances among heavyweights, at least based on the historical record that is available to us. Certainly, his contempories considered him to be a major innovator in these areas.

[janitor]

There are also the inovators who take their secrets to the grave with them.

Joe Gans got a job carrying Bob Fitzsimmons spit bucket just so that he could learn from him. He learned a lot but concluded that Corbett held back his best stuff.

[Lex]

Well, heck, just to spice things up a bit, I'll toss in Jimmy Slattery. Alcoholism and personal problems wrecked him, but his style anticipated Muhammad Ali. Most writers of that era talk about what might have been... He deserves at least a nod alongside Maxie Rosenbloom, arguably the best repeated matchups of their era. Reckless abandon alongside masterful defense.

[Sam Dixon]

Well, heck, just to spice things up a bit, I'll toss in Jimmy Slattery. Alcoholism and personal problems wrecked him, but his style anticipated Muhammad Ali. Most writers of that era talk about what might have been... He deserves at least a nod alongside Maxie Rosenbloom, arguably the best repeated matchups of their era. Reckless abandon alongside masterful defense.

Have you ever heard or read that rather humourous story in regards to their second fight, Lex, where both Rosenbloom & Slattery were said to have each laid bets on the other guy to win the fight?

[janitor]

Well, heck, just to spice things up a bit, I'll toss in Jimmy Slattery. Alcoholism and personal problems wrecked him, but his style anticipated Muhammad Ali. Most writers of that era talk about what might have been... He deserves at least a nod alongside Maxie Rosenbloom, arguably the best repeated matchups of their era. Reckless abandon alongside masterful defense.

Slatterey was indeed the prototype for Muhamad Ali.

Before him however Dixe Kid apears to have used a similar style.

[robert ungurean]

Jack Dempsey of course.

[Lex]

Have you ever heard or read that rather humourous story in regards to their second fight, Lex, where both Rosenbloom & Slattery were said to have each laid bets on the other guy to win the fight?

Oh, yeh! When I was first getting into amateurs boxing as a teenager I read every magazine I could get my hands on. There were great anecdotes from the guys who knew the boxers from way back when.

I recall another story where Jim Braddock and one of his opponents so obviously rigged the fight between themselves that the commission paid each fighter only a fraction of their pay and donated the rest to charity. (I'm trying to recall whether that fight was during the time when Braddock's hand was essentially useless but he had to keep fighting.)

In a class of boxing that dares not speak its name (The Professional Loser... shhhh... ), the all-time king is Reggie Strickland, with more than 300 pro fights and more than 250 losses, reportedly 25 by KO. But Reggie's record is misleading. He realized years ago that he could make a good living as cannon fodder, a safe opponent for up and comers.

Before his apparent retirement in 2005, I saw Reggie several times on televised bouts, usually 4 or 6 rounders. He had excellent defense, could obviously have beaten more opponents if he wanted to, and had mastered the art of taking a dive without making it embarrassingly obvious. He did it not so much to pad the opponents' records as to save his own skull from unnecessary harm.

I'm sure Reggie didn't pioneer this "technique," but he certainly mastered it and set the bar high... umm... low...? :yep

[janitor]

Jack Dempsey of course.

Wasn't Dempsey esentialy just a bigger versoion of Terry McGovern and Jack Dillon.