Originally Posted by
NoSavingByTheBell
For me, the Art of boxing is overrated; while it is an art (think Ali, Robinson, Leonard, Mayweather) it is far too often random, lucky, spontaneous openings that appear, and the dumb luck of being, say, out of position or on the wrong foot, which allowed you to score a KO when it never wouldve happened had you been in the "correct" position at that moment. I have seen far too many flukes/miracles/inexplicable, beauteous, spontaneous actions and reactions in fights, that there would be NO WAY to practice it or plan for it. THAT is what boxing is for me, not so much an art (of course I am not discouraging the fundamentals of defense and footwork and training and learning the combinations or how to throw/adjust a jab, feints, etc.) but all that goes out the window "the minute the first punch is thrown" (I think we remember which all time great said that!)
The Art of Boxing for me is not a corny "to hit and not get hit" (it's like telling someone the secret of success is to save money.......duhhh......Captain Obvious there), but rather it is SENSING IN THE SPLIT SECOND WHAT IS UNFOLDING, and CAPITALIZING ON IT. And THAT, my buddies, cannot be TAUGHT.
Yeah, the art of boxing was on display by Moorer against Foreman until...
To this day I say Rumble in the Jungle would never be duplicated-laying on the ropes waiting to tire a foe out isn't really that scientific.
I also think Leonard vs Duran wasn't so much about the art or science-as he never forced a guy to walk away after that.
Another great example of the art of boxing for me is Winky Wright vs Sam Soliman. After winky decimated a great of his era (Tito) with just a jab...by the end of his fight with Soliman, Winky was swollen red, much to Larry Merchant's chagrin, "
Winky...you look like you've been in a fight"
Of all the guys that made him look normal was a guy who seemed to fall into landing punches and fall out of the way of getting hit.
Another one for me is when Nate Campbell was commentating an Ali Funeka fight...he cracked me up when he stated- "See guys like him, long and wiry looking, it looks like he is falling out of the way of a punch, not some specific move you can pinpoint. When I fought him it look like he would throw a punch way out of range, then somehow lands it, not because he is skilled. Guys who don't throw straight punches are hard to predict where it will land, based on where he launches his punches.- or guys who don't really master the art.
As far as the phrase itself, I'm ok with it. Guys like Floyd Mayweather overall is a textbook fighter who does it (everything) with precision, accuracy, timing, footing. He knows distance, can gauge his foe's speed, positioning. Which punches his foes throws that generates power- is it his hook or his uppercut.
I think Floyd is a computer-thinker in that sense which I could say he is an example of a fighter who knows the art of boxing.
To counter, so, too, does Bernard Hopkins, but he know some shady shit to do that -if done at the right time and position out of range for the ref-to see...well could that be called the art of boxing as well?
Final example for me of a fighter who knows the art-but doesn't always translate to victories is Tim Bradley What a great Ring IQ he has, balance, speed. Yet all those muscles...and no one fears getting in the trenches to which is why Provodnikov to him to the brink...workman like performance put the ARTIST in his bathroom urinating blood.
Glencoffe is probably my All time favorite -in terms of a guy who can spoil a boxer's technique, by outworking, outhustle.
Heck I think a 190lb Marciano beats the highly skilled Usyk-by blue-collar beatdwon. Sometimes skills, talent aint enough.
Sometimes the art of boxing is spoiled by intangibles.
Bookmarks