A fighters "reach" measurement

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 10:24

When I did boxing at primary school, we were told that when you jab, your shoulders and left arm (presuming you are left handed) should form a straight line as the punch lands, and that you should take a half step forward as you deliver the punch.

However, I talked to another trainer last year who told me this was wrong and that the jab should be delivered more 'square on' and only at a slight angle.

Surely you want to get almost maximum extension on the jab if you want some force behind it?

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 26 Sep 2006, 10:37

Terence wrote:Reach means little if you do not put your shoulder into the punches. How many guys with a long reach think a jab means standing with your arm dangling loosely out in front of you? Plus lots of guys with long arms do not think they need to step in behind their punches.

It depends on the context. Tall fighters boxing on the retreat can use the jab to keep opponents off balance opening up counterpunching opportunities. Other fighters use the jab to draw opponents into committing a mistake then capitalising. Other fighters use the jab as a range finder. I wouldn't say it is always necessary to look for maximum leverage by turning the shoulder over every time a jab is thrown. But of course there will be times when it is appropriate. Fighters should be aware of how to mix it up given the situation.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 26 Sep 2006, 10:50

Ike Quartey in his prime showed the perfect example of stepping in with the jab, used to get so much power into it.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 10:52

SticknMove wrote:
Terence wrote:Reach means little if you do not put your shoulder into the punches. How many guys with a long reach think a jab means standing with your arm dangling loosely out in front of you? Plus lots of guys with long arms do not think they need to step in behind their punches.
It depends on the context. Tall fighters boxing on the retreat can use the jab to keep opponents off balance opening up counterpunching opportunities. Other fighters use the jab to draw opponents into committing a mistake then capitalising. Other fighters use the jab as a range finder. I wouldn't say it is always necessary to look for maximum leverage by turning the shoulder over every time a jab is thrown. But of course there will be times when it is appropriate. Fighters should be aware of how to mix it up given the situation.

not many fighters these days seem to use the jab as an offensive weapon, more and more we see guys pawing with the jab or just using it to keep the opponent off balance.

That's one of the reasons I like Jermaine Taylor, he's got an old school jab which not only keeps his opponent busy, but keeps them off balance and sets them up for the follow up shot.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 11:01

Terence wrote:
SticknMove wrote:
Terence wrote:Reach means little if you do not put your shoulder into the punches. How many guys with a long reach think a jab means standing with your arm dangling loosely out in front of you? Plus lots of guys with long arms do not think they need to step in behind their punches.
It depends on the context. Tall fighters boxing on the retreat can use the jab to keep opponents off balance opening up counterpunching opportunities. Other fighters use the jab to draw opponents into committing a mistake then capitalising. Other fighters use the jab as a range finder. I wouldn't say it is always necessary to look for maximum leverage by turning the shoulder over every time a jab is thrown. But of course there will be times when it is appropriate. Fighters should be aware of how to mix it up given the situation.
If you punch square-on and miss you could end up on your arse, they taught us to jab like that in kick-boxing. It is pony as far as I can see.

A tall fighter moving back and jabbing will often only be able to dangle the jab. People see a tall guy moving back dangling a long arm out and think he is jabbing when he is not. Think about it, flu-jab, finger-jab, any jab is a forward movement, dangling your left hand out is not jabbing, it is fannying about. You would need to set your feet even for a split-second. Dangling out your left in this way and retreating should be known as the invitation punch because you are saying "Hey shorter guy, why not bob and weave under this fooking useless arm of mine and kill my body!"

You can vary jabbing speed, power and rotation but if you move back and stick out a arm jab how likely are you to break your opponents balance? You are not even touching the guy, you are just giving him space to move into and that is what pressure fighting is all about.

People talk about Ali punching moving backwards but often he would not be a million miles away and would turn his head and bring his punches over the other guys shots, you cannot hit when you are not in range.

Surely you want to get almost maximum extension on the jab if you want some force behind it?
Yeah, I hear it is the same as hitting a golf-ball, you go through the target. I mean how many of us would take ten steps away from someone then 'jab' a finger into their chest? We would be pointing, not jabbing

In terms of physics, Ideally to get maximum force you need a stable platform i.e your feet planted and your weight distributed on the front foot, and you should be at maximum velocity and still accelerating at the point of impact.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 11:03

Terence wrote:
topper123 wrote:Ike Quartey in his prime showed the perfect example of stepping in with the jab, used to get so much power into it.
Toney did versus Peter. It is scary how shit the judges are getting, I discussed it with a few people and they say that as boxers and trainers they watch a fight and see so much that the judges seem to overlook. For example a guy jabbing right through another guy.

How long before pro-boxing is computer scored? We are going that way with nerds going on about punch stats as if they are Biblical

I think it's inevitable that it will happen and professional boxing will go the way of amateur scoring. Compubox stats are already being used by many people as an arbiter as if they reveal everything.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 11:17

Terence wrote:The way I do it, and see it done, is that the fighter moving back slides his back leg as normal then brings his front leg back then pops out the jab, you get your solid base but it looks like you are moving back and jabbing. If each movement is followed by a jab it will all blur into one and you will be jabbing and moving. Jabbing on your toes does not give you a lot of purchase and it is a bit of a dangler.

I was told the best way to think of a jab is to see it as a stick that you have to beat your guy down with.

Some Martial Arts places teach you to jab with the thumb up, that is crazy to me.

Andy Morris has a lovely jab, he can spar a bit welter or light-welter and jab straight through their guard and shots. It is about timing and technique, it is the first punch you learn but not necessarily the first one you master.

If you have a kid who can move a lot and flurry with fast hands you get the other, ideally slightly bigger and much slower kid, to stand his ground, plant his feet and jab when the other guy flurries, then when he steps in he will be righ ton top and the jab will push the other kid back so you can beat him up when he is unable to sort his balance out. I worked with one kid and had him jabbing time after time and stepping in with it and that one punch did for him better than a whole bunch of flurries from the other kid.

Ps I'm not doing a McKenzie, these were genuine kids!

Father Marcus used to call it a stick actually, he used to say we should use it like a pole or a battering ram. Admittedly this was kiddies boxing in the school hall,but it seemed to work well enough at the time.

funnily enough the guy who told me to jab more square on was an MMA dude, and I thought that might be why he was telling me to bring the jab out more in front of the body that to the side.

In MMA and in Kick boxing it makes more sense, because you have to be concerned about a kick coming in and disemboweling you all the time, so it's not worth putting too much on the jab. One kick delivered accurately to the chops and it's lights out for some considerable time.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 11:35

Nope, Indian and Hindu actually, had been a professional boxer in India (are there many professional boxers in India? Maybe he was an amateur actually, cannot think of any indian professional boxers.

I can still remember the bloody exercises he used to make us do, we used to do that one where you make tiny circles with the shoulders with your arms out, and then bigger and bigger ones wheeling your arms around like you were trying to take off. There used to be tears sometimes as the burning set in. He used to make us throw loads and loads of jabs at the heavy bag for a full 3 minutes.

Thinking about it now, I'm amazed the school allowed it really, kids twatting one another with little 4oz gloves without gumshields, headguards or even a ring. Wouldn't happen now for fear of a court case if little timmy got his eye blackened.

We used to do the forward kick pushing thing in kick boxing, quite effective. I used it recently when someone tried to mug me and they got the shock of their bloody lives, as did I because I didn't even know I was going to do it.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 26 Sep 2006, 11:57

If you punch square-on and miss you could end up on your arse, they taught us to jab like that in kick-boxing. It is pony as far as I can see.

Kick boxing will teach a boxer nothing, whereas boxing will always be beneficial to the kick boxer.

A tall fighter moving back and jabbing will often only be able to dangle the jab. People see a tall guy moving back dangling a long arm out and think he is jabbing when he is not. Think about it, flu-jab, finger-jab, any jab is a forward movement, dangling your left hand out is not jabbing, it is fannying about. You would need to set your feet even for a split-second. Dangling out your left in this way and retreating should be known as the invitation punch because you are saying "Hey shorter guy, why not bob and weave under this fooking useless arm of mine and kill my body!"

I catch your drift. Obviously dangling an arm out isn't jabbing.

However quickly it is done a boxer on the retreat would have to set his feet and move. It doesn't mean he would have to put max leverage and power on the jab to set an opponent off balance or line him up for counterpunches or even a pay off punch. Some fighters dangle and paw with the lead hand for the very reason you suggested; to draw a shorter fighter in and set him up for bigger shots.

As an aside, if you watch the Valero-Mosquero fight, how many times does Valero, whilst boxing on the retreat, paw out his lead hand setting the distance for him to unload his power combinations with maximum leverage and at optimum range.

There are indeed many ways in which the jab works for different fighters with varying styles within different situations within a fight and this is the context I am referring to.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:01

to have a good jab, then you've got to get snap on the punch, not push it out , when learning to jab its best not to practice a jab on the heavy bag to much IMO, slows it down i find. Best way is on the pads, you can really feel the difference between a pushed jab and one thats snapped out by the feet, shoulder and arm combining.
Footwork is just as importent, get the balance right in the feet, so your not lunging , when people say step in its not a huge step just a quick movement foward so the punch goes that extra distance maybe just 8/9 inches.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:05

too many of these fighters though only EVER seem to use the jab as a range finder. I mean, you can use the jab as a rangerfinder and still land it with some force. Lennox Lewis used to paw with the jab, but when he needed to, he also landed it as a thumping great pole which not only kept opponents off balance, but hurt them too. Against Vitali K, as soon as he began landing the jab with some authority the fight began to turn in his favour. If it is ONLY being used as a rangefinder, then it is limiting the fighters' offensive capacity.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:06

topper123 wrote:to have a good jab, then you've got to get snap on the punch, not push it out , when learning to jab its best not to practice a jab on the heavy bag to much IMO, slows it down i find. Best way is on the pads, you can really feel the difference between a pushed jab and one thats snapped out by the feet, shoulder and arm combining.
Footwork is just as importent, get the balance right in the feet, so your not lunging , when people say step in its not a huge step just a quick movement foward so the punch goes that extra distance maybe just 8/9 inches.

Yeah, a half step to close the distance and get the momentum moving in behind the punch before setting the feet if moving forward of course.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:19

The trouble with a discussion like this is that it is too generic and text book and applies really to novice fighters trying to set them on the right path. After the basics are taught and a fighter reaches a certain level he will adapt what he has learned to a style that he feels comfortable with. I mean how many truly text book boxers do you see out there nowadays. The waters have become muddied by so many unorthodox fighters doing so well.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:24

Indeed. However, when you look at someone like Floyd Mayweather, you can see that he has all of the fundamentals in place, far more so than someone like Roy Jones who relied entirely on his incredible speed of thought and physical prowess. Jones did have fundamentals, he showed that against John ruiz by jabbing to victory, but the problem for Jones was that once his confidence got knocked by Tarver, he had no fundamental boxing to fall back on at top level, and hence got blasted by Johnson, who did little more than rush him and throw lots of shots. Jones couldn't get out of his shell and fire back and was completely helpless in that fight, almost as if he didn't know how to fight back.

There are really very few unorthodox fighters who do really well in fact. If you look at most of the success stories it's guys who were technically good. Barrera and Morales for instance are technicall correct guys, Pacman is becoming increasingly so I think, so is Mayweather, so was Hopkins, Wright, Taylor (with some flaws, but still a good technical boxer), Marquez,....I am sure there are lots more, just don't have time to list them all.

Had Hamed had more basic technique, he would have bounced back from the defeat to Barrera better, and could have made more of a fight of it in there when his plan A didn't work.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:36

SticknMove wrote:The trouble with a discussion like this is that it is too generic and text book and applies really to novice fighters trying to set them on the right path. After the basics are taught and a fighter reaches a certain level he will adapt what he has learned to a style that he feels comfortable with. I mean how many truly text book boxers do you see out there nowadays. The waters have become muddied by so many unorthodox fighters doing so well.

Yes true, but its always good to teach correct style even to an unorthadox boxer, look at the current heavy scene, ruled by east europeon boxers who were taught the principles of a good jab, the americans can't deal with it at the moment, as they prefer to trying to do a Tyson and blast everyone out of there. (except Toney)

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 26 Sep 2006, 12:42

I am certainly not arguing that there are not a lot of technically gifted boxers who are world champs. The ones you mentioned and many more exist. What I'm saying is that there are fewer text book boxers about. Technical fighters can and do adopt a degree of unorthodoxy. PBF, for example, probably the most talented boxer out there today keeps his lead arm low across his side and front of his body when an opponent has him up close. His right hand is up high cupping his ear. I've never seen that in any text book, but it works for him because he's watching and riding the punches and has excellent reflexes to land that right hand when sees the opportunity.

Hamed IMO had excellent technique ie. refer to earlier fights but relied too much on being awkward and unorthodox. He could have been the legend he said he would have been but his arrogance got the better of him in the end.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 26 Sep 2006, 13:15

topper123 wrote:
SticknMove wrote:The trouble with a discussion like this is that it is too generic and text book and applies really to novice fighters trying to set them on the right path. After the basics are taught and a fighter reaches a certain level he will adapt what he has learned to a style that he feels comfortable with. I mean how many truly text book boxers do you see out there nowadays. The waters have become muddied by so many unorthodox fighters doing so well.
Yes true, but its always good to teach correct style even to an unorthadox boxer, look at the current heavy scene, ruled by east europeon boxers who were taught the principles of a good jab, the americans can't deal with it at the moment, as they prefer to trying to do a Tyson and blast everyone out of there. (except Toney)

Yep it looks like the East European factory line approach of churning out successful amateur fighters has worked well for the HWs whose transition to the pro ranks has been easier given the dearth of talent in that division.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 26 Sep 2006, 17:53

I think I understand the general gist of these later posts. It is very frustrating to see quality fighters use chesslike, cat and mouse approaches to the game when a more straightforward, so to speak, approach would be more entertaining and true to their own talent and abilities. If that is the gist, then I agree.

But the sport has moved on, for good or bad, and fighters will adopt whatever styles or tactics that are effective, to win fights. That, for them, is what it is all about. I welcome the diversity of styles of fighters only when it produces a true fight. Some guys are so safety first and negative that they turn fans vehemently against them.

exmuslim · Post by **exmuslim** » 29 Sep 2006, 02:45

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
KO Artist wrote:
exmuslim wrote:Height: 188 cm; wingspan: 203 cm. Dont have any idea what that is in the American measurement system.
Divide by 2.5 and that will give you the imperial measurement.

Its about 6'3" and an 81" reach (6'9")
Sorry to be a pedant, but
So one meter = 39.4 inches = 3 1/4 feet

188 cm = 74 inches 6' 2" and 203 = 79.9 inches bloody long actually.

Is it really? I heard Rahman is 6-2 with 82 inch reach. Sonny Liston was 6-1 with 84 inch reach (now that is long for his height!!).
See, Saudi is quite warm, summer goes above 50 C so according to what you said about cooling of the body etc, it is perfectly normal to have longer arms than lets say a Scandinavian or a Russian. Those racial types would have major problems keeping warm in the winter if they had arms as long as an Arab or an African. (I am referring to the ancestors, before modern times with central heating etc)

So I guess people with very long reach should concentrate on jabbing from outside and keep it at a distance, so as to make the most of this advantage?

What is more advantageous, having a few extra inches in height or the same number of inches in extra reach? And why?
Personally I think height is more important, because if you have to punch up for more than 6 rounds, your arms will tire faster than usual, but I could be wrong.
Im interested in other views on this. Anyone??

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 29 Sep 2006, 07:59

I don't see the sport having moved on at all. This is just it. Who are the most successful boxers around at the moment, and what is their technique like? As always it's the fighters with the best fundamental technique who have gotten to the top and stayed there, with a few notable exception, like Pacman for instance.

Whilst as said here, fighters like Mayweather deviate from the norm in the ring, watch Mayweather when he is under serious fire, and look how tight his guard is and how effective those blocks and parries are, beautiful textbook stuff when needed. His punch technique is also beautiful to watch. Same goes for Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Castillo, etc etc.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 29 Sep 2006, 08:41

wise words and true, james