The Great Misconception of Boxing - ie. How Can Joe Louis Lose

Not to make another old-timers vs modern fighters argument, instead I'll try to think this from a slightly different perspective.

Modern-day fans point out that fighters of all divisions are bigger than in the past and since size is an advantage in boxing, it is plausible to think that modern guys would do well in comparison. Old-time fans counter by pointing out that in old days the competition was tougher and the ring records of the legends speak for themselves. Modern fans can show results from other sports and note that the level of sports has risen from 1950s in all sports, while old-time fans can show clips of Joe Louis or Sugar Ray Robinson and show that they had all the skills and more compared to modern guys. And so on.

What I think here is that when we try to make comparisons such as these, it is important to understand how boxing is different from most individual sports. It demands speed, power, skill, heart etc like any real sport, but there is more to it. In many senses, boxing is closer to team sports than individual ones.

If two guys compete at running, weight lifting or high jumping, the better guy wins. Better meaning better in absolute sense: the guy who runs faster is the better one. Boxing is different: a guy can defeat his opponent even if he only has one advantage over his foe. The most simple example being when a scrub fighter scores a 1-punch KO over a more skillful opponent.

The same happens with hockey, basketball etc. Michael Jordan was the greatest player ever, even though he was not the best ever at rebounds, 3-pointers etc. Wayne Gretzky was the best hockey player even though he was not very strong, his slap shot was not the hardest ever etc.

What people, even great trainers, have not always understood about boxing is that to beat your opponent you don 't have to be better than him in every way. It is enough to have one good advantage and to make that count.

That's why we should be careful when we speak about better boxing technique and try to compare fighters that way. For example, Joe Louis has probably the best all-around arsenal of moves and punches in the heavyweight history, and yet few people these days would pick him over Muhammad Ali, because Ali has the reach and speed advantage. And, what must be noted, is that if Ali had studied the same skills as Louis and fought him more flat-footed, exchanging hooks, he probably would have lost, because Louis' edge in power might have come to play more.

So what all this means is that there is no one good boxing technique that everybody should study. If a fighter is tall, strong and slow (eurostiff-type), there is no use of trying to learn Tyson-esque upper body movement and combos - keeping distance and throwing one-twos is the perfect technique to that guy. And if a fighter has no physical talent whatsoever, then a Ruiz-type of technique where you try to prevent the other guy from fighting and thus outwork him is the perfect strategy.


Thus, if you want to make a pick between Joe Louis and Wlad Klitshko, it is too simple to pick Wlad just because he is the bigger guy, because being big does not win anything. It is also too simple to pick Louis because he has more moves, since he might be in a situation where he can't use them to his advantage. Fights come down to who has the advantage that the other part can not compensate.

My other point here (since I always have an agenda) is that since boxing technique is subjective and it varies depending on the size and physical skills of a fighter, it is misleading to say "fighter X is better than Y, he just has less size and thus he loses". If the fighter Y had less size, he would probably also have more speed, greater movement and the ability (and need) to learn a greater variety of techniques. Having size and using it to effect can not count against a fighter.

peace.

 

I enjoyed this read --- except that nasty little final line of Hut's ::

This has the makings of a quality thread.

 

I just deleted that post, sorry :: I'm gonna come back to this thread when I have more organised thoughts on it. UGTK's post was a bit multi faceted & wriggly for me to really respond to coherently.

 

Why? I thought it was very articulate.

 

What did he say?

 

6 developments in boxing strategy I see

1) Increased use of distance & movement
2) much more clinching and stink
3) more pity pat & shoe shine punches designed to score rather than hurt
4) more unorthodox punching angles, sometimes appearing 'wrong'
5) greater willingness for guys with speed advantages to go against the textbook and lead with power shots
6) a greater diversity in fighters styles allowed by the above by fully exploiting their strengths through otherwise unorthodox styles and compensating for their weakness through stink.

Now, I'll show my hand immediately and admit I don't especially enjoy or admire certain of these new elements of boxing, but i think they are effective and represent legitimate evolutions in the effectiveness of fighters. And I think that's the gist of UGTBKs post - that what looks good isn't always what's most effective and ostensibly negative developments are sometimes effective.

That said, I genuinely think the standard of skill as opposed to strategy has decreased too. The talent pool is a tiny fraction of what it was and I really think the shear numerical competition in inner city American gyms in the 40s and 50s was almost like nuclear fusion in a star, just spewing out heavy elements, innovation & talent. Now it's like a cold dwarf just cooling off in space - the innovation has dried up and as the old timers die so with them does allot of knowledge. The rest of the world is progressively improving, certainly but I don't think it's fully compensated for the collapse in US talent.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4ATaP2TyF9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The above surely demonstrates more skill than we see in boxing today. By that I mean co-ordination, fluidity, relaxation, the integration of defence and attack through head movement (dont care what anyone says that done properly IS superior to a high guard), etc. Your average boxer today is much more rudimentary and robotic than their 50s counterparts, with a much more limited skillset - partly because they just don't spar or fight nearly as much.

The old timers vs modern timers debate really cruxes on whether you think the strategic developments outweigh the decline in skill, talent pool & sharpness, IMO. Whether the limiting of techniques used is through discarding the ones that don't work or whether it's because most guys just aren't good enough to do what was once common.

But lastly, like I said in the post I deleted - there's probably no sport so untouched by sports science and training developments as boxing. Calzaghe, Floyd, Manny, B-Hop & Pavlik trained exactly the same way as Moore, Robinson, Duran, Monzon & Graziano. Their physiques reflect that. So that footballers and gridironers and sprinters of the 60s couldn't possibly compete with modern guys is a total red herring in a boxing discussion. All those guys have radically revamped their training. That's why they jump higher and run faster and weigh more and tackle harder. Only our 3 heavyweight champions have followed suit as far as Im aware.

Likewise that middleweights are bigger now is a red herring. 50 years ago they'd just be light heavyweights and Archie Moore would have stayed at middleweight or whatever, that isn't a development/improvement just a change in weigh in rules. I know you aren't saying that, but being pedantic I just wanted to explicate that, so the issue doesn't get muddled! (big heavyweights is obviously a separate issue).

 

Any fighter can hurt any other fighter if he can get to doing his own thing. But that is th essence of boxing- fighting your fight, the other guys fight, etc. Marquez is widely regarded as one of the elite fighters today, we even have Sardine-crazed Antipodeans who think he might be the best combo puncher of all time. He could never get close to Mayweather to do this thing.

 

I commented that I agreed with one of your messages between the lines - that Vitali Klitschko's boxing technique is actually good, despite looking horrible from a textbook perspective, because it's so well tailored to his physical attributes.

 

Yup, that's the issue.

 

MMA provides a few useful exaggerated analogies to understanding boxing strategy, IMO. In this case you might imagine the most skillful boxer in the world in against a wrestler with only one rudimentary but well honed skill - getting a take down.

Mayweather is way more skilful, but the wrestler has the winning strategy and the tools to use it, so it might not matter.

I'm not saying for sure that that's the dynamic between fighters of the 50s and 10's, in fact I don't personally believe that it is, but it's an analogy of what I take to be UGTBK & Irish' opinions & kinda describes the case for modern fighters.

 

You must also note that even in Joe Louis era the old-timers talked about lack of techniques. For example Jack Johnson called Louis simple and predictable.

I don't see a difference between high guard and shoulder blocking in principal. Yes, shoulder block is more difficult, but is it in any way better than simple glove block or slip? If not, there is no real reason to retain that technique. Same with six-punch combinations: one-two can do the same so you don't necessarily need them. So a limited skill-set does not equal to less success.

Also I disagree with clinching being more common than it used to be. I recently rewatched plenty of Sugar Ray Robinson and there was lots of clinching included, same goes with plenty of past stars.

In training there have been new innovations too. Coaches know more about producing explosive power (as opposed to strength) than before, we now know that running does not weaken legs, which was believed for long. How much these changes have affected the game is different, but trainin has changed

 

Head movement leaves your hands free, simple as that. Taken to it's paradigmatic extreme, blocking without head movements leaves you with guys like Abraham and Clottey. Utterly, utterly rudimentary method of defence.

I never said shoulder roll was superior to general head movement per se, it has certain advantages if pulled off at a high level & a couple of draw backs too.

And what exactly do trainers know about power if they don't increase strength? Added plyometrics sure ain't gonna do much for guys who are already hitting heavybags (ie shock jumps for the arms) thousands of times as day, as well as throwing and catching medicine balls etc.