The Sweet Science

FTA69

This is a great video from a couple of years back of Chavez Jr sparring underrated Armenian, Vanes Martirosyan. It's exactly how sparring should be conducted in the gym and shows some solid work from both. If Chavez Jr can tighten up aspects of his defence he'll be a much more formidable force.

walshb

Beautiful offensive display from both men. JCC is considerably bigger than the sparring partner. SMW vs. LMW.

FTA69

I've been a fan of Martirosyan since he held Lara to a draw. He has great explosiveness and lovely combinations.

Emmo-m-

Mayweather and Andre Ward both use the jab to the body. Fairly effectively as well.

You can hear Virgil Hunter saying to Ward in his last fight I think to use the "Floyd Jab" meaning the one to the body. Although obviously Floyd didnt invent the punch ha.

Henno30

Lee Wylie on the footwork of Roman Gonzalez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rq8iKZnRyc

walshb

Wasn't sure where to post this, but this thread seems the best place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppoypIfgW-Q

4 mins 40 is probably the best KO I have ever seen. Its delivery is awesome. I had seen it several years ago and couldn't recall how I had seen it. Came across it by accident. The slo-mo of the KO is beautiful. You just have to see it. Ranks higher for me than his KO of Graham.

walshb

pac_man wrote: »

Punching power! Is it something you improve with technique or are you born with it?

Bit of both. But you either have force/weight/power to a naturally high level or you don't. The skill and techniques that you work on make the delivery and effectiveness of your punch that bit deadlier. I have done pads with hundreds of people, and many of them were very poor and unskilled guys, but some of then generated effortless power. It just happens with them.

megadodge

Takaloo v Wayne Alexander - still the best one punch ko I've ever seen.

Go to around 10:20 in the following video for the live KO and 12.45ish for the replays

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okfGnACPaEg

Big Ears

Julian Jackson was always value for money, he's got a highlight real of spectacular ko's all to himself.
These are 2 that always stick in my mind when I think massive ko shots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGQfadN_10Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJJI-Dn2hmk

Sergio Martinez ko of Paul Williams, and JMM's ko of Pacquiao, and Pacquiao's ko of Hatton are a few others than stand out.

While some people are certainly born punchers, what a fighter is trying to do is apply as much force as possible through a certain point, in a certain plane of motion, and to not believe that physical training and improved technique can seriously alter that ability would be naive.

FTA69

Poor Herol. He coaches in my gym from time to time. He had that fight totally in the bag until he got sparked.

Henno30

Great breakdown of Crawford's performance against Gamboa here - http://www.badlefthook.com/2014/11/27/7295485/crawford-vs-beltran-terence-like-water-boxing-technique-analysis-gamboa-bruce-lee-southpaw

megadodge

It depends entirely on the boxer. Someone like Marvin Hagler switched comfortably and was effective from either side, but others just look awkward and stiff.

If a kid learns to box either side from a young age and is coached correctly it can be very confusing for an opponent. I once coached a young lad who switched very comfortably and when I saw he could do it easily I never discouraged it and always got him to switch when doing padwork. However, the two older coaches (who had coached me back in the day) were very old-fashioned in their thinking and told me that he had to stick to one side, otherwise "he'll only confuse himself". The only problem from their perspective was that when I asked each of them separately which way he was better, one of them said southpaw and the other said orthodox! Point proven. He won an All-Ireland, switching in the quarter, orthodox in the semi and mainly southpaw in the final.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

It depends entirely on the boxer. Someone like Marvin Hagler switched comfortably and was effective from either side, but others just look awkward and stiff.

.

For me Hagler always looked awkward and clumsy as an orthodox.

menoscemo

Pretty sweet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1bkMtrPZwY

walshb

For me the right hook head/body is Tyson's signature combo. Shows his smoothness off his "bad" wing!

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

For me Hagler always looked awkward and clumsy as an orthodox.

Maybe against Ray Leonard, which was his last ever fight and where he wasn't even close to his best and where I thought he gave away a few early rounds by fighting orthodox, but at his peak he did it very effectively.

And of course there's your favourite boxer ever - Naseem Hamed, very effective from either side.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Maybe against Ray Leonard, which was his last ever fight and where he wasn't even close to his best and where I thought he gave away a few early rounds by fighting orthodox, but at his peak he did it very effectively.

And of course there's your favourite boxer ever - Naseem Hamed, very effective from either side.

He looked ridiculously clumsy vs. Leonard off both wings:pac:. It being his last fight doesn't explain it. He may have been past his best, but not a shell. I think he was somewhat exposed by a real slick and fast mover type boxer. I rate Hagler, but not as highly as others.

Hamed for me did not look good as orthodox. Not brutal, but didn't stand out.

megadodge

I thought he showed signs of serious decline versus Mugabi and that was a full year before Leonard. But I agree Leonard's style would give most boxers problems not just Marvin.

I thought Hamed just didn't look good at all, in any stance. That was what I actually expected you to reply with the first time:)

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

I thought he showed signs of serious decline versus Mugabi and that was a full year before Leonard. But I agree Leonard's style would give most boxers problems not just Marvin.

I thought Hamed just didn't look good at all, in any stance. That was what I actually expected you to reply with the first time:)

Hamed had wonderful balance and feet. That I will give him. But it's more than juts that when assessing it. He didn't have the same punching ability as orthodox, as only expected. I wouldn't be impressed with him off his weaker side.

Henno30

Rather than respond to the outrageous slurs directed towards my beloved Marvin Hagler in this thread, I'll just leave this nice little breakdown here.

Does a good job of explaining why Hagler's stance switching while in full flow was such a weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDEV01LgNVE

Littlehorny

Henno30 wrote: »

Rather than respond to the outrageous slurs directed towards my beloved Marvin Hagler in this thread, I'll just leave this nice little breakdown here.

Does a good job of explaining why Hagler's stance switching while in full flow was such a weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDEV01LgNVE

Great video Henno and i agree with you totally, Hagler is my favourite of all time. Hard as nails and no compromise with him. Robbed in his fight with Leonard, it is up to the challenger to wrestle the title from the champion not hoodwink the judges.

boxer.fan

http://instagram.com/p/yawUIunKFt/

GGG working on his money shot

Talib Fiasco

Insight into some of the genius that makes Naoya Inoue so special. This guy could easily outdo Manny in winning world titles in more than 8 divisions.

Talib Fiasco

Another breakdown vid of the best p4p active boxer in the world

Henno30

Gonzalez has to be one of the best fighters to watch in the entire sport. An action star technician with god-like balance.

menoscemo

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

Another breakdown vid of the best p4p active boxer in the world

Fantastic, but I still think he is ducking Ali Raymi

Henno30

pac_man wrote: »

Fighters often behave on instinct and not every move is black and white.

That doesn't matter. It's about identifying a pattern. Of course fighters don't always think through everything they do, like you say it's done on instinct. Probably trained into their subconscious a long time ago. But there's still a pattern that can be observed in what they're doing and highlighting those is the point of such videos.

Panic E

Good stuff here from the man himself, and man that was some beatdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWVUyT1lE0

walshb

Panic E wrote: »

Good stuff here from the man himself, and man that was some beatdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWVUyT1lE0

If only Floyd had stayed still for long enough!

Panic E

walshb wrote: »

If only Floyd had stayed still for long enough!

I think it's more the case of Manny being at his peak then in 2010.

He fought half the fight on his backfoot, a good performance there.

walshb

Panic E wrote: »

I think it's more the case of Manny being at his peak then in 2010.

He fought half the fight on his backfoot, a good performance there.

Maybe a bit of both, but beating up on a man who cannot defend or move is a whole different ball game to trying to let shots go fluidly against Mayweather.

Panic E

walshb wrote: »

beating up on a man who cannot defend or move

:eek: When did this happen :eek:

walshb

Panic E wrote: »

:eek: When did this happen :eek:

Margarito was a punchbag, and more so since Mosley ruined him. Pacman looked excellent against Margarito because Margartito was a punchbag!

Clottey was also a punchbag.

Panic E

walshb wrote: »

Margarito was a punchbag, and more so since Mosley ruined him. Pacman looked excellent against Margarito because Margartito was a punchbag!

Margarito was the Junior Middleweight champion man, hardly a punchbag.

And also one of the most if not the most avoided boxer around at that time.

Look at the size difference between them! It was a valiant performance man.

walshb

Panic E wrote: »

Margarito was the Junior Middleweight champion man, hardly a punchbag.

And also one of the most if not the most avoided boxer around at that time.

Look at the size difference between them! It was a valiant performance man.

His weight and standing has nothing to do with it. Watch the actual fight. The action, Margarito's movement etc. He was a punchbag, and anyway, never great to begin with. Mosely had already destroyed him. A past his prime Mosley too. I am not saying that Manny just had to show up. Manny is a world class operator. His movement and speed were always going to beat a stationary and slow and 'defenseless' fighter like Margarito. Pac's performance was exaggerated by Margarito's performance, or lack of a performance.

Panic E

I did watch the fight at the time. Margarito was dangerous, he hurt Pacquaio in the fight & broke his ribs in fact. Of course he didn't have the speed and combination punching of Manny (who had?) but Manny had to utilize a lot of skills to win in the fashion he did. Unbelieveable operator around that time.

Well, whatever you reckon so. Still a great performance and highlight reel, that's what I like to see. And Mayweather still ducked Margarito in any case.

walshb

Panic E wrote: »

I did watch the fight at the time. Margarito was dangerous, he hurt Pacquaio in the fight & broke his ribs in fact. Of course he didn't have the speed and combination punching of Manny (who had?) but Manny had to utilize a lot of skills to win in the fashion he did. Unbelieveable operator around that time.

It was a very impressive display from Manny, but Margarito for me was tailor made for him.

Big Ears

Panic E wrote: »

Margarito was the Junior Middleweight champion man, hardly a punchbag.

And also one of the most if not the most avoided boxer around at that time.

Look at the size difference between them! It was a valiant performance man.

Eh no he wasn't.....and he never has been.

Also an MRI revelaed Pacquiao had only strained muscles in the area, not actually broke any ribs.

It was still a very good performance, and Margarito had much more left than he did in his final fight. But that wasn't the same man who broke Cotto in their first fight. Although even that may not have been good enough.

Henno30

Manny would still look spectacular against anyone who steps into his range. It's when that stops you'll know he's done. He has never been a real pressure fighter above the featherweight neighbourhood. Too small, and insufficiently educated in cutting the ring off.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

It was still a very good performance, and Margarito had much more left than he did in his final fight. But that wasn't the same man who broke Cotto in their first fight. Although even that may not have been good enough.

And Cotto gave him an absolute pasting that first fight. Cotto just didn't have Manny's volume and power combined. Had he more pop, like Mosley, then Margarito doesn't get through to him near as much, hence why I selected Mosley to do a number on Margarito.

walshb

Manny Pacquiao out of range and against a mover never impressed me. When in perfect range and letting the hands go he looks great, but only really straight shots. He's not at all a fluid/varied hitter. Looks cumbersome and awkward when he tries to mix the shots up. Next to no inside game. Looks uncomfortable on the inside. Very similar to Khan is his punching variation and inside game. They look awkward.

Even Manny's most awe inspiring win, his KO of Hatton, he looked awkward and offensively reckless. Head down at times and swinging!

Panic E

Interesting little tidbit here lads. Look at the style similarities between them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxhnog9zU5g

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

I think you're right, AND as regards title defenses and reign and impact he's right near the top. Look at what he he did in that 4 year span from 1986-1989. Apart from Louis/Ali and Holmes it's possibly the best resume of the rest.

was a massive Tyson fan but his resume wasn't great at all, Bruno was probably his best win!

walshb wrote: »

As to Foreman. I think a lot of people base the claim on Foreman beating Tyson on the fact that he destroyed Frazier. Now, anyone trying to say it's a similar outcome is BS to me. Tyson offers a whole lot more than Frazier and his straight in and left hook. Tyson's feet are faster, hands faster and he uses angles. He was a deadly power punching machine, who also took a great shot. He had a far more varied punching attack than Frazier. Foreman was wild/wide and hittable, and he could be dropped.

Foreman had a chin of granite, Ali dropped him by fatigue and the only time he was anyway hurt was by Ron Lyle

Foreman to me would have been a nightmare for Mike.
He was big strong with a great heart and George actually had great footwork, something people often over look, Mikes biggest weakness was he did struggle when lads put it up to him

with that said, Mike could have ko'd anyone so was always in with a shot

walshb wrote: »

FTA69, who have you got with a 21 year old Tyson vs. the 1991/1992 Holyfield?

Holyfield always. He was made to fight Tyson, Stamina, chin, courage and he had respectable power too
I genuinely don't know how Tyson could have beat Evander

pac_man wrote: »

Punching power! Is it something you improve with technique or are you born with it?

Punching power is nature given but can be improved on with technique
A weak puncher will never become a big puncher no matter what they do

Diddley Squat

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

was a massive Tyson fan but his resume wasn't great at all, Bruno was probably his best win!

Foreman had a chin of granite, Ali dropped him by fatigue and the only time he was anyway hurt was by Ron Lyle

Foreman to me would have been a nightmare for Mike.
He was big strong with a great heart and George actually had great footwork, something people often over look, Mikes biggest weakness was he did struggle when lads put it up to him

with that said, Mike could have ko'd anyone so was always in with a shot

Two Foreman's. 1970s and the 2nd era. Do you think a peak Tyson beats neither man?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Two Foreman's. 1970s and the 2nd era. Do you think a peak Tyson beats neither man?

1st 1 definitely not, 2nd 1 is hard to say as he still had the chin and the power

I do prefer to compare them both at peak though, and i think his peak was when he was retired unfortunately, Mike was jailed during peak years but he was an early peaker at 20 or so

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

1st 1 definitely not, 2nd 1 is hard to say as he still had the chin and the power

I do prefer to compare them both at peak though, and i think his peak was when he was retired unfortunately, Mike was jailed during peak years but he was an early peaker at 20 or so

It's funny, although I believe Foreman 1 to be more a monster than Foreman 2, Foreman 2 was probably a more rounded fighter. I think the peak Tyson might just be too quick for Foreman. Not one shot, but 3-4 rapid fire heavy shots. I see him really buzzing and stunning Foreman, Foreman could be dropped and hurt. Tyson brings so much more artillery and speed than Frazier. Mike also took a better shot, and had a a better defense.