When a judging fighters theres a whole slew of unnoticeable attributes

[them_apples]

When judging fighters we always seem to judge on physical capability - which also is limited. Physical attribute’s can be very very subtle. You won’t even see everything if its old footage.

I noticed this first when Ali fought Holmes. The camera angle and tech changed with the 80’s. Even though Ali is shot you get a glimpse into some of the more skillful stuff he does. Really subtle feints. He does this thing where both his shoulders are in a constant micro shrugging (for lack of a better word, staying loose). When he does that you cant tell which punch is coming a left or right (and this allowed him to land some lead rights on Holmes early). In this book I got on 30s boxing (og copy will make scans) it explains that muscles in perpetual motion dont get tight or tired as easy. Emphasizes keeping the left hand in constant motion.

got me thinking, how many other subtle things are over looked. How much is it the fighters mind? And how much of the fighters mental game is effected by the temperature of the public in his current day. And how does this effect h2h matchups.

theres some Candid footage of Leonard training in his prime, and although Oscar is sort of his successor - they were completely different fighters. Ray Leonard was a bad mother****er who just happened to use michael Jackson as his swag mentor cause that was cool in his time. What Duran did to Leonard and his wife shook him in his boots. In the brawl in Montreal, Durans ego was bigger than Leonards. This is often why fighters say “he was the better man tonight” as a frustrated way of explaining something they cant comprehend.

does anyone else want to add some intangibles to the fight game that we often overlook? Too many of us just use speed, power and “skills” (whatever that refers too) when trying to make predictions. The definition of skill is also something that needs to be elaborated on. Skill in a usecase that is practiced in sparring every day actually might look pretty ugly - since nothing in nature says its defined by looking pretty. If a fighter is slick and cool with it while employing skills then all the power to him, but just remember this doesn't make them MORE skillful rather more so entertaining.

gene fullmer is skilled. So is pernell whitaker.

[Willow The Wisp]

Allot to unpack there my friend. I'd imagine the dearth of reply traffic is attributable to 13 readers looking for a perfect place to jump in and enjoin the rant and finding dammed little. But I'm cool. Yes, I agree. Something as strait forward as saying "Let's make a Fight....no weapons, no sneaking up, no ground grappling, takedowns, shoots, sweeps, stomps or throws. No butts, no knees, elbows and no strikes with anything but the fists. No bites, eye gouges, fish hooking, chokes, joint hypertensions, wet willies, flesh ripping, nail scratching, hickies, and for the love of Christians no ball squeezing, and in fact; no attacking below the belt at all. Keep it honorable, just like the Mesopotamians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, English and Americans viewed an honorable fight. Worthy of a historically significant spectator sporting event, rather than a proves-nothing act of violence. Just that simple, you establish the playing field so as to maximize the filtered extraction of who is the better man and filtering out the features that would skew the results....and ****, just like that, the human capacity for great endeavor turns it into something complex and highly nuanced. Style. That's what I call it. Yes I do.

[GhostofDempsey]

One often overlooked intangible is how a fighter responds to adversity, both during the fight and if they lose a fight, particularly by knockout. It has been said that the sign of a true champion is how he bounces back from a loss, especially a knockout loss. A knockout loss can defeat many fighters to their core, and they are often never the same. It not only challenges them physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. Another consideration is how they overcome adversity during the fight--how do they handle a big cut over the eye, or can they overcome a broken nose, jaw, hand, etc., during the fight and still finish on their feet? These are all traits to consider when measuring a fighter's greatness IMO.

[The Old LefHook]

Are V Klit's tangled legs an intangible when he is under blitz?

[billeau2]

When judging fighters we always seem to judge on physical capability - which also is limited. Physical attribute’s can be very very subtle. You won’t even see everything if its old footage.

I noticed this first when Ali fought Holmes. The camera angle and tech changed with the 80’s. Even though Ali is shot you get a glimpse into some of the more skillful stuff he does. Really subtle feints. He does this thing where both his shoulders are in a constant micro shrugging (for lack of a better word, staying loose). When he does that you cant tell which punch is coming a left or right (and this allowed him to land some lead rights on Holmes early). In this book I got on 30s boxing (og copy will make scans) it explains that muscles in perpetual motion dont get tight or tired as easy. Emphasizes keeping the left hand in constant motion.

got me thinking, how many other subtle things are over looked. How much is it the fighters mind? And how much of the fighters mental game is effected by the temperature of the public in his current day. And how does this effect h2h matchups.

theres some Candid footage of Leonard training in his prime, and although Oscar is sort of his successor - they were completely different fighters. Ray Leonard was a bad mother****er who just happened to use michael Jackson as his swag mentor cause that was cool in his time. What Duran did to Leonard and his wife shook him in his boots. In the brawl in Montreal, Durans ego was bigger than Leonards. This is often why fighters say “he was the better man tonight” as a frustrated way of explaining something they cant comprehend.

does anyone else want to add some intangibles to the fight game that we often overlook? Too many of us just use speed, power and “skills” (whatever that refers too) when trying to make predictions. The definition of skill is also something that needs to be elaborated on. Skill in a usecase that is practiced in sparring every day actually might look pretty ugly - since nothing in nature says its defined by looking pretty. If a fighter is slick and cool with it while employing skills then all the power to him, but just remember this doesn't make them MORE skillful rather more so entertaining.

gene fullmer is skilled. So is pernell whitaker.

angles. Watch how some fighters set up angles to counter and to be evasive without being defensive. Archie Moore is a great example. Setting up so the angle makes the fighter miss the punch.

Shoulder and chin position. Very much overlooked: from the famed false centerline of fighters from the 20's until modern times, to guys like Hopkins who employed it. To the concept of angling the chin and shoulder to brace for impact into the structure of the person (keeping the head from getting cranked)...so force is grounded through the legs, hips and spine to the ground and not into the body.

From a more general perspective: 1. Intuition. Some fighters have an instinct about setting up properly, moving to the right area, knowing how to use skills...
2. Being coachable: Very important! How good would Joe Louis have been if he had sneered at Blackburn and said "shiaaaat I ain't worried bout my punching form! Lets take a really great example: The great Holyfield. Evander was essentially a guy who always had power, a good engine for most of his career, and lots of heart. But what made Evander truly great was his boxing ability which his coaches implored him to use: Evander preferred to just slug it out which he did twice with Bowe, and which he never did with Tyson. Evander could follow a plan and was therefore coachable: He beat bowe boxing him and he stopped Tyson pushing in against his balance point instead of backing up and getting clocked! Which was taught to him by Don Turner!

[Willow The Wisp]

One often overlooked intangible is how a fighter responds to adversity, both during the fight and if they lose a fight, particularly by knockout. It has been said that the sign of a true champion is how he bounces back from a loss, especially a knockout loss. A knockout loss can defeat many fighters to their core, and they are often never the same. It not only challenges them physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. Another consideration is how they overcome adversity during the fight--how do they handle a big cut over the eye, or can they overcome a broken nose, jaw, hand, etc., during the fight and still finish on their feet? These are all traits to consider when measuring a fighter's greatness IMO.

So True . Regarding the response to losing a fight. George Foreman is an interesting case. His was one of the worst responses ever, following Zaire. Made Deontay Wilder and his Breland betrayal/heavy suit breakdown look like taking it in stride. He also claims history's best response too; retirement for decades, leaping right over, as if born on wings, the end of the Ali era, the entire Larry Holmes era and all of the first Tyson era; and regaining the one true title as though he had been cryogenicly frozen and revived in another century. Wild stuff.