I'm interested to hear what you think this means, exactly, and what value it has.
Printable View
I'm interested to hear what you think this means, exactly, and what value it has.
Yea it's a tough one and you've made good posts on this in the past. A lot of talented fighters probably do gear their camps more towards just being freakishly conditioned, rather than fixing their mistakes or learning how to box in the first place these days. Not sure if that's what you're trying to get at.
To put it one way, Andre Berto is probably as good a pure "athlete" as their was in boxing for a good while. Doesn't mean a lot if you don't have any craft behind it obviously. Then again if you've got two really schooled fighters, natural athleticism can make all the difference. I guess you'd just say wins in boxing rarely come down to who was the better athlete ultimately though, that's what makes it great.
Good question. Grey - where do you come out on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Athleticism relates to speed, strength, reaction time, coordination and a combination of them. So, an athletic boxer might be someone who naturally punches faster, moves around the ring with more ease, punches with more power, has better reflexes and coordination etc. than his opponent.
But...Julio Cesar Chavez was a better 'athlete' than...I've seen him up close many times and he was very un-impressive. But he could fight like a tiger. Carl Williams could out run Mike Tyson, dunk on him, beat him at anything except fist-fighting.
Right, and Carl Williams couldn't lift weights with Arnold.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
It's a complicated topic with many parts.
There are good all-around athletes, meaning they could pick up most sports and be very competitive without too much training. We all had the guys in high school that were on the baseball, basketball and football teams. For example, blanking on his name, but wasn't the quarterback of the 49ers also a baseball phenom, but decided to go the football route? Remember Bo Jackson? And wasn't there NFL safety, again blanking on his name, that had some boxing fights during the NFL lockout.
On the other hand, sometimes great athletes in one sport are only good at that sport. Their physical attributes combined with the skill set required to be successful in their chosen sport lend to success there, but that combination doesn't translate across the board.
Good all-round athlete doesn't equate to good boxer. Good boxer doesn't equate to good all-around athlete.
There are some innate, natural, if you will, physical attributes that should lead to success as an athlete across the board. For example, quick reflexes has to be a good trait for almost every sport. Speed, whether foot or hand, is helpful for success.
I think its an important attribute and is something that cant really be taught so it gives some boxers an edge. I remember a few years ago someone said that America's missing out on lots of HW boxers because they chose to go into other sports such as American football so its obviously a good attribute for a boxer to have but its by no means the be all and end all.
I don't think it has to do so much with reflexes, in any sport. I've been reading about how a batter, in baseball, from experience, learns to predict the pitch at the top of the pitcher's delivery. This happens in tennis and other sports, and it happens in boxing.
I don't think that the ability to run faster or jump higher helps in boxing (other than in dire emergencies)...Boxing is a pretty specialized thing in that it happens under fire; you get hurt right now if you are wrong.That is a pretty special condition that affects a lot of individuals and their athleticism.
Well, you look at guys who have athleticism and they can be great or they can be good or they can be duds, dependent upon a few things. Reaction times slow when one gets older - people eventually figure out freakish fighters and take away the best thing that fighter does. Also, the aura of invincibility goes away once someone knocks them off the mountain and suddenly we're not talking about the same guy.
Examples... Roy Jones, Jr. was freakishly athletic (steroids talk aside, he was that way in the Olympics). His reaction time has slowed and once Tarver KO'd him, the aura was gone. He no longer believed he was who people thought he once was, and that was one of his greatest attributes.
Berto is a great athlete. He is a knucklehead in terms of using that to his advantage, so his athleticism got him only so far, until he fought guys that can really fight.
Hopkins is not the most athletic guy, but he is an example of a guy who uses what gifts he has to his advantage. He is always in top condition and he has better stamina than most of his opponents. He is also very smart in the ring and adapts to the other guy's best 'stuff' - he takes away opponents' best athletic attributes.
I'd say Seth Mitchell is athletic... but is he a boxer? Not really - he doesn't have 'it' - whatever 'it' is.
How about quickness of punch and strength of punch? I would also argue that in boxing reflexes to get away from punches, while it is possible to learn to an extent, better reflexes mean more likely getting away from a punch, especially from faster boxers.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
I would attribute it to things that would be important in all sports:
Hands & Eyes Coordination
Balance
Endurance
Strength
Speed of mind and of body
As a reply to several comments...
-RJJ relied on his athleticism, his reflexes, etc...he oriented them to boxing, and he fired his father for insisting he learn how to fight. He slowed down, he became a target with no chin, no heart, nothing to work with.
-Hopkins, on the other hand, had the heart to be a fighter. he focused the skills he had- had he focused them otherwise, maybe he could have beat Jones at basketball-and he had the heart to be a fighter. he learned and that skill has surpassed his athleticism and made him more money than his physicality ever did.
-reflexes will screw you. The whole motion of you avoiding an opponent's punch and countering it isn't based on you being faster. Ever wonder why so many fast guys hit an opponent so many clean shots and he's still there? It is like playing a 45 RPM record (?????) at 78, it is out of time. You have to time your opponent.
-hand eye co-ordination does not necessarily translate. Just because you can hit a fastball does not mean you can slip and counter a jab. A guy, in 2006, brought his son to me, an all star Baseball player and a scratch level golfer. he was sure his son could fight- and I guess he could, big and strong he'd beat most of his peers. But to teach him to box...Balance is sport specific because you use your feet very differently.
To an extent athleticism is a natural ability, Fury has little, Haye has a lot. Cotto has some, Mayweather has more.
Flexibility, speed, agility, natural strength (not to be confused with power of punch).
Too many aspects to note.
Are you suggesting that athleticism, however we define it, doesn't play a role in making a successful boxer?Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Can a great trainer create a beautiful boxer who doesn't have a ton of athletic ability? Absolutely. If you are arguing skill is more important than athleticism in boxing, you won't get much argument from me, but most of the time, the elite guys have something special athletically. Perhaps it is god-given punching power, or incredible reflexes, or amazing sense of depth, or really fast hands, but usually there is an athletic quality or two that make a fighter special.
Its a huge plus for certain fighters. I think of Ray Leonard when discussing this! Ray was in my gym for his 5 or 6th fight (New Haven Ct) and he was an outstandng athlete able to tumble on matts and run and jump like a deer!
Eye hand coordination is a huge advantage to have in any sport and in boxing the boys with hand speed all have it!!
There are successful men that aren't equiped with these gifts that have done very well but why not have as much advantage as you can!!! Big + for athleticim in my experiences! Ray
You are on to it there. there is innate power in boxing, just like in baseball. you can improve it, but some guys are born with it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't make you great, in either activity. reflexes are sport specific; some people are more pre disposed to pick up that skill quickly than are others. fast hands... give me a few days and i can give you freaking FAST hands, not to mention power that you won't understand. Because I know how to teach your feet and your hips and your shoulders. It isn't hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratAre you suggesting that athleticism, however we define it, doesn't play a role in making a successful boxer?Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Can a great trainer create a beautiful boxer who doesn't have a ton of athletic ability? Absolutely. If you are arguing skill is more important than athleticism in boxing, you won't get much argument from me, but most of the time, the elite guys have something special athletically. Perhaps it is god-given punching power, or incredible reflexes, or amazing sense of depth, or really fast hands, but usually there is an athletic quality or two that make a fighter special.
But the thing I am getting at is this...The quality to not only know how to punch hard, slip, bob weave, counter, all that, but to do it with an equally skilled and trained opponent trying to knock you out. And not only that, but, if you are really good, to deliberately expose yourself with the idea that it makes him easier to hit. THAt requires a mind set that is very rare, a willingness to expose one's self to harm that isn't common.
I understand where you're coming from. I guess I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsooldYou are on to it there. there is innate power in boxing, just like in baseball. you can improve it, but some guys are born with it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't make you great, in either activity. reflexes are sport specific; some people are more pre disposed to pick up that skill quickly than are others. fast hands... give me a few days and i can give you freaking FAST hands, not to mention power that you won't understand. Because I know how to teach your feet and your hips and your shoulders. It isn't hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratAre you suggesting that athleticism, however we define it, doesn't play a role in making a successful boxer?Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Can a great trainer create a beautiful boxer who doesn't have a ton of athletic ability? Absolutely. If you are arguing skill is more important than athleticism in boxing, you won't get much argument from me, but most of the time, the elite guys have something special athletically. Perhaps it is god-given punching power, or incredible reflexes, or amazing sense of depth, or really fast hands, but usually there is an athletic quality or two that make a fighter special.
But the thing I am getting at is this...The quality to not only know how to punch hard, slip, bob weave, counter, all that, but to do it with an equally skilled and trained opponent trying to knock you out. And not only that, but, if you are really good, to deliberately expose yourself with the idea that it makes him easier to hit. THAt requires a mind set that is very rare, a willingness to expose one's self to harm that isn't common.
Gray - but you have to admit that there some people have faster hands than others, right? Also, are you suggesting that a "faster" boxer is typically one who knows how to combine the "feet, hips and shoulder movement" better than someone else?
Basically, this.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavilaJones
Athleticism is a broad term but basically means they have some or all physical gifts that translate from sport to sport.
It could be an absolute term or a relative term.
For example, you can tell that Wladimir Klitschko would do better in more sports compared to other modern heavyweights
You have guys like a young Ali or, who were fast and, maybe more importantly incredibly balletic.
Plus you also had guys like Mike Tyson, who had extraordinary speed and power. Plus considerable upper-body movement)
Then you had guys like Manny and Roy who just put it all together.
Sure, some people are naturally 'faster' but I think that really only means better coordinated, especially when that 'fast' is displayed in some activity, like throwing punches.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratI understand where you're coming from. I guess I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsooldYou are on to it there. there is innate power in boxing, just like in baseball. you can improve it, but some guys are born with it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't make you great, in either activity. reflexes are sport specific; some people are more pre disposed to pick up that skill quickly than are others. fast hands... give me a few days and i can give you freaking FAST hands, not to mention power that you won't understand. Because I know how to teach your feet and your hips and your shoulders. It isn't hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratAre you suggesting that athleticism, however we define it, doesn't play a role in making a successful boxer?Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Can a great trainer create a beautiful boxer who doesn't have a ton of athletic ability? Absolutely. If you are arguing skill is more important than athleticism in boxing, you won't get much argument from me, but most of the time, the elite guys have something special athletically. Perhaps it is god-given punching power, or incredible reflexes, or amazing sense of depth, or really fast hands, but usually there is an athletic quality or two that make a fighter special.
But the thing I am getting at is this...The quality to not only know how to punch hard, slip, bob weave, counter, all that, but to do it with an equally skilled and trained opponent trying to knock you out. And not only that, but, if you are really good, to deliberately expose yourself with the idea that it makes him easier to hit. THAt requires a mind set that is very rare, a willingness to expose one's self to harm that isn't common.
Gray - but you have to admit that there some people have faster hands than others, right? Also, are you suggesting that a "faster" boxer is typically one who knows how to combine the "feet, hips and shoulder movement" better than someone else?
A lot of attention is paid to 'fast hands', but there is more to it. Try and punch with just your hands- can't do it for long, can't punch hard, not too fast either. But you start turning your shoulders to drive your hands and that all changes- you can throw short fast hard punches because your body is driving them, from the feet up.
I'm not explaining myself well at all...
Some great entries in this thread.
I’m not sure there can be a right or wrong answer here. Is this an inherited trait? I can’t even find a suitable definition other than that which seems to pop into all of our heads. @DavilaJones has a better definition then the dictionary. I thought of Jones immediately in respect to boxing. Like a third eye at work. As others have referred to there is something else with the elite of the elite in sports generally. How did Sanders read the field like he did and make those cuts? Freakin Matrix. Some of Gretzky’s passes were not humanly possible and he could put the puck dead to rights w/o a sound when it hit the stick. Jordan had something extra. And the guys like Martinez, Bo Jackson and Deion that made the elite level of two sports. I bet the Nfl teams are lining up to make a play for Bolt once he leaves track. Still some track super stars can’t catch a football. What of the decathletes? What if anything did Harry Wiley contribute to Robinson’s athleticism or Arcel to Duran or Benny Leonard?
How much does chemistry as in peds play a role? I know you asked for boxing related but it’s hard not to look at the question in a broader sense. I think the case could be made that it’s something you are born with on the most fundamental level. Perfected over time in the chosen sport by honing in on its specific requirements. Trouble is, the case can also be made that much of it can be learned like in the Hopkins example. Or say Goldman’s tutelage of Marciano. It’s a real brain tease.