why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
-
margaret thatcher
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 39335
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
just wondering?
why do we save words like beautiful, lovely, tidy, art form, etc boxing to describe a guy moving backwards
but a guy who wins moving forward is not seen in the same way?
why do we save words like beautiful, lovely, tidy, art form, etc boxing to describe a guy moving backwards
but a guy who wins moving forward is not seen in the same way?
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 103151
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Very good question
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Ask Joe Joyce
We wouldn't get the best of answers mind
...
We wouldn't get the best of answers mind
...
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
really who is the p4p king fighting in 2 weeksmargaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Apr 2021, 18:24 just wondering?
why do we save words like beautiful, lovely, tidy, art form, etc boxing to describe a guy moving backwards
but a guy who wins moving forward is not seen in the same way?
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Moving forwards is beautiful when you slip shots and land your own
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Moving forward like Duran making guys miss then countering is beautiful. Moving forward getting picked off and hitting thin air is not beautiful.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
different movements are described differently but moving invading shots is always gonna sound more adtractive, than punching some ones lights out though ,
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
When done by the experts , both are poetry in motion ,, although i will say , i watch ameteurs a lot and am constantly frustrated to watch lads who cannot box going backwards ,, Anything you can do going forward you MUST be able to do going backwards ,
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Watching prime Chocolatito was as beautiful as it gets, watching him stalk his opponents with his movement and angles going forward was a joy to watch and better than watching someone box on the backfoot landing infrequently.
-
AntonioMartin
- Middleweight
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: 22 Feb 2014, 13:19
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
I don't know...but to me personally, Macho Camacho was the first one I saw who did it like an artist.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Apr 2021, 18:24 just wondering?
why do we save words like beautiful, lovely, tidy, art form, etc boxing to describe a guy moving backwards
but a guy who wins moving forward is not seen in the same way?
-
Grilling Machine
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3160
- Joined: 16 Sep 2005, 02:28
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23088
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Buatsi or Terri Harper?brilo33 wrote: ↑30 Apr 2021, 18:28really who is the p4p king fighting in 2 weeksmargaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Apr 2021, 18:24 just wondering?
why do we save words like beautiful, lovely, tidy, art form, etc boxing to describe a guy moving backwards
but a guy who wins moving forward is not seen in the same way?
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
People who rate runners are faux purists. If you give up the centre of the ring and allow the other guy to have all the forward momentum then it needs to be a means to an end. It needs to be an effective trap that tires the other guy and allows you to pick him to bits from the outside. Simply running and tapping/potshotting as a game plan in its entirety is utter garbage and the bodies that oversee scoring criteria should not be encouraging it.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
I've found many Chippenham fighters do it that way, I'm not sure whether they copied McCallum or if it's something in the water there.
Even drunks double up the the lead hook inside after slipping the jab in Chippenham
-
Controversial
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9218
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
The art of boxing is to hit without being hit. So if you can make your opponent miss whilst hitting them back, that is beautiful boxing, either going side to side, forward, backwards or standing still. It's a skill, taking two to land one isn't.
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 32938
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
I don’t think we do really, those are just lazy terms used by commentators. Plenty of examples of beautiful boxing when moving forward.
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 32938
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Yeah it’s crap when done poorly, like some of the Rigo fights where he just bored the pants off everyone.Ricky wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:26 People who rate runners are faux purists. If you give up the centre of the ring and allow the other guy to have all the forward momentum then it needs to be a means to an end. It needs to be an effective trap that tires the other guy and allows you to pick him to bits from the outside. Simply running and tapping/potshotting as a game plan in its entirety is utter garbage and the bodies that oversee scoring criteria should not be encouraging it.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
This is another fallacy, maybe in the amateurs you score a fight that way, but if someone comes forward and is hit with 2 powderpuff punches in order to land one that busts his opponent in the mouth or ribs then that should rank much higher given half the criteria is defined by effective punching & aggression.Controversial wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:41 The art of boxing is to hit without being hit. So if you can make your opponent miss whilst hitting them back, that is beautiful boxing, either going side to side, forward, backwards or standing still. It's a skill, taking two to land one isn't.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:47 I don’t think we do really, those are just lazy terms used by commentators. Plenty of examples of beautiful boxing when moving forward.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Coco wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:40I've found many Chippenham fighters do it that way, I'm not sure whether they copied McCallum or if it's something in the water there.
Even drunks double up the the lead hook inside after slipping the jab in Chippenham
superb
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
he never mentioned 'powderpuff punches'Ricky wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 05:02This is another fallacy, maybe in the amateurs you score a fight that way, but if someone comes forward and is hit with 2 powderpuff punches in order to land one that busts his opponent in the mouth or ribs then that should rank much higher given half the criteria is defined by effective punching & aggression.Controversial wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:41 The art of boxing is to hit without being hit. So if you can make your opponent miss whilst hitting them back, that is beautiful boxing, either going side to side, forward, backwards or standing still. It's a skill, taking two to land one isn't.
you're making a silly false dichotomy 'boxing on backfoot must = soft punches'
in his example, it's not a powderpuff punch, its a punch. Just a punch. It's possible to punch conclusively and cleanly whilst moving. Even moving backwards.
see, here, Rick
a man moving backwards and knocking his opponent out
amazing, eh?
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23196
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
He insinuated that taking 2 to land 1 isn't going to be scored favourably; which is the old amateur system of punches = points.Counter-puncher wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 05:10he never mentioned 'powderpuff punches'Ricky wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 05:02This is another fallacy, maybe in the amateurs you score a fight that way, but if someone comes forward and is hit with 2 powderpuff punches in order to land one that busts his opponent in the mouth or ribs then that should rank much higher given half the criteria is defined by effective punching & aggression.Controversial wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:41 The art of boxing is to hit without being hit. So if you can make your opponent miss whilst hitting them back, that is beautiful boxing, either going side to side, forward, backwards or standing still. It's a skill, taking two to land one isn't.
you're making a silly false dichotomy 'boxing on backfoot must = soft punches'
in his example, it's not a powderpuff punch, its a punch. Just a punch. It's possible to punch conclusively and cleanly whilst moving. Even moving backwards.
see, here, Rick
a man moving backwards and knocking his opponent out
amazing, eh?
If you read my above post, that running and choosing to fight on the backfoot, needs to be a means to an end, as is the case in your clip. I suspect the OP started this thread off the back of Sunny Edwards farcical performance and the vomit inducing commentary from Woodhall and the 12-0 scorecards that came back.
-
margaret thatcher
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 39335
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
ya, but who says the guy coming forward needs to take 2 to land 1. and cutting off the ring , getting a fighter in a corner, being able to move forward quick to close the distance etc..are as much of abilities as moving backwards and avoiding an opponent tooControversial wrote: ↑01 May 2021, 04:41 The art of boxing is to hit without being hit. So if you can make your opponent miss whilst hitting them back, that is beautiful boxing, either going side to side, forward, backwards or standing still. It's a skill, taking two to land one isn't.
but you almost never hear that that equates to 'beautiful' boxing, 'smart boxing', that it's such an art form, and other pretentious stuff