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?

Post by margaret thatcher »

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?
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 103149
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Very good question
garethhop
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1637
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 18:00

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by garethhop »

Ask Joe Joyce

We wouldn't get the best of answers mind
...
brilo33
Middleweight
Posts: 7865
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 16:05

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by brilo33 »

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?
really who is the p4p king fighting in 2 weeks
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28504
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Coco »

Moving forwards is beautiful when you slip shots and land your own
emallini
Middleweight
Posts: 1676
Joined: 08 Nov 2013, 12:31

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by emallini »

Moving forward like Duran making guys miss then countering is beautiful. Moving forward getting picked off and hitting thin air is not beautiful.
brilo33
Middleweight
Posts: 7865
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 16:05

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by brilo33 »

different movements are described differently but moving invading shots is always gonna sound more adtractive, than punching some ones lights out though ,
coneye
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8610
Joined: 21 Jun 2004, 06:00

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by coneye »

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 ,
digzee
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1582
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 13:49

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by digzee »

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?

Post by AntonioMartin »

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?
I don't know...but to me personally, Macho Camacho was the first one I saw who did it like an artist.
Grilling Machine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3160
Joined: 16 Sep 2005, 02:28

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Grilling Machine »

Coco wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 18:28Moving forwards is beautiful when you slip shots and land your own
Like Chippenham's Mike McCallum.
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23088
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by mickey1975 »

brilo33 wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 18:28
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?
really who is the p4p king fighting in 2 weeks
Buatsi or Terri Harper?
Ricky
Lightweight
Posts: 13909
Joined: 08 Aug 2018, 09:27

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Ricky »

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
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Counter-puncher »

digzee wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 19:48 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.
:TU: and commentators and fans always said as much.
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28504
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Coco »

Grilling Machine wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 21:19
Coco wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 18:28Moving forwards is beautiful when you slip shots and land your own
Like Chippenham's Mike McCallum.
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
Heavyweight
Posts: 9218
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Controversial »

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: 32936
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Boxerbeetle »

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: 32936
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Boxerbeetle »

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.
Yeah it’s crap when done poorly, like some of the Rigo fights where he just bored the pants off everyone.
Ricky
Lightweight
Posts: 13909
Joined: 08 Aug 2018, 09:27

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Ricky »

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.
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.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Counter-puncher »

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.
:TU:
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Counter-puncher »

Coco wrote: 01 May 2021, 04:40
Grilling Machine wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 21:19
Coco wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 18:28Moving forwards is beautiful when you slip shots and land your own
Like Chippenham's Mike McCallum.
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
:OhYes: :yay:

superb
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Counter-puncher »

Ricky wrote: 01 May 2021, 05:02
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.
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.
he never mentioned 'powderpuff punches'

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: 23193
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by handsofstone »

garethhop wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 18:26 Ask Joe Joyce

We wouldn't get the best of answers mind
...
:lol: :lol:
Ricky
Lightweight
Posts: 13909
Joined: 08 Aug 2018, 09:27

Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?

Post by Ricky »

Counter-puncher wrote: 01 May 2021, 05:10
Ricky wrote: 01 May 2021, 05:02
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.
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.
he never mentioned 'powderpuff punches'

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?
He insinuated that taking 2 to land 1 isn't going to be scored favourably; which is the old amateur system of punches = points.

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?

Post by margaret thatcher »

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.
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 too

but you almost never hear that that equates to 'beautiful' boxing, 'smart boxing', that it's such an art form, and other pretentious stuff
Post Reply