BoxRec

I have to say that if the "British style" is becoming extinct then good riddance to it. I prefer fighters who don't move like they've got a broomstick stuck down the back of their trunks and who know how to fight inside.

Whilst I agree Nobby Nobbins - I think its great to have a back up plan to these "be first" fighters.... look at Ricky as an example - fantastic fighter, gets over criticised by "experts" for his standings on his talent - e.g. not many will say he is more talented than Joe Calzaghe, or even the realitively untestest David Haye, because somehow people say "come forward = limited"... However, it is a style that once you lose, if you have no back up plan, its hard to come back from... because self doubts begin about your strength, power etc - which is the fighters strength. Other fighters will also see you as beatable.

Look at how Marco Antonio Barrera changed his style after he tasted defeat and after he didn't fancy warring like before - thats the sign of a great fighter - I think fighters should be encourage to be comfortable on the back foot, comfortable at keeping it at range - obviously I wouldn't be training Ian Napa to do this!

As much as the "british style" has been shown to be flawed over the years, mainly because of the lack of firepower such a style inevitably brings - the "be first" mentality that is being taught to 10 year old now is also a concern. They need variety - cause not always is being first is enough. As Hatton found out against Mayweather, and Moore found out against Rhodes.

You would think with the current amateur points scoring system that the British style would be suited for it.

Wales wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:
Wales said there wasn't any real physical difference between a British fighter and a Cuban fighter for example - but there obviously is based on DNA, culture and other aspects such as music which promotes rhytyhm - a top flight English footballer and a Brazillian footballer may train the same amount but who is the more skillful and which nation produces the better footballers on average? It makes sense that not every nation produces the same quality of sportsman for whatever reason.

Did I??

I said about Cubans...

Wales wrote:theyre skin, bone and attributes just like the rest of us.

but at no point did I try to say they dont produce a different style of fighter.

I haven't re-looked at the thread but I could do if this thread continues - you said that British fighters are as good as the Cubans! That they are flesh and blood like the British - it's like saying the Scots are as good as the Argentinians at football - they are made of the same flesh and bone! You said (I might be wrong here but I don't think so) that Cuban boxing was overrated!

Carlos-Wigan wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:arrrrrrrgh!

King DG is moaning about us lot not starting enough threads so I thought I would start a thread.

Before anyone starts moaning - let me just state that Andy Murray is an Oirish fighter.

But he does box in the classical British text book style.

I loved watching him on Saturday. Upright, jabbing beautifully, using his feet to make deft counters on a tough, game opponent who was schooled in the American style.

The Americans big on style based on regions (they always refer mockingly as the 'European' style) - and in a broad sense - there can be some truth to it - Mexicans tend to box a certain way (or are taught a certain way) as do the Italians as do the Puerto Ricans as do the Germans. This is barring exceptions which are always the rule.

Wales said there wasn't any real physical difference between a British fighter and a Cuban fighter for example - but there obviously is based on DNA, culture and other aspects such as music which promotes rhytyhm - a top flight English footballer and a Brazillian footballer may train the same amount but who is the more skillful and which nation produces the better footballers on average? It makes sense that not every nation produces the same quality of sportsman for whatever reason.

So my point is - the classic, textbook British style that I saw on Saturday with Andy Murray - you don't really see all that much in the gyms around the UK anymore - why?

I think rap music ans techno in all these gyms are responsible for producing these different styles of fighters to the ones we used to see in British rings?

so firstly then how would we describe a typical british fighters style ?

im not convinced that music can be making that much difference but i wouldnt totally rule it out in other countries , countries that maybe listen to traditional native music , but this country is so multicultural that the music is diverse , i as an example was very quick handed when i boxed , it was my defence that let me down , but i grew up listening to mainly reggae , which is slower , i naturally evolved onto dancehall which is faster and would have been listening to that when i boxed but it was simple slower reggae that would have influenced me as i was groing up , im described as very laid back , so much that im almost horizontal ( so they say) , so if music is to blame for that then reggae would make sense , but then sure my boxing style would have been all calm and collected too .

I have just said.

Upright style, jabbing fast with one hand and using the more powerful hand as the one to land with the knockout blow using the feet sparingly but deftly to land counters - something like Henry Cooper or Alan Minter or Bruce Woodcock or Pat Cowdell or - I can name hundreds of fighters to be honest with that style - used to be very common on these shores but you hardly see it anymore - British boxing has changed quite a lot over the past 30 years. There is a definite British style - ask anyone who has watched boxing before 1985.

I have never heard reggae in a gym but I have not been in every gym in the country - the ones I have been to have usually heavy bass music or techno or whatever - the gyms I trained in never had any music.

What I do know is that is that hardly any of our top fighters have that classical British style - the nearest we have to it is Amir Khan!
If you think of the styles of Froch, Hatton, Witter, Naz, Lennox Lewis, Calazghe, (who style is very Italian - a harder hitting, slightly more aggressive Gianfranco Rosi)none of these styles have really been seen in the UK before - most of these fighters except Witter whose style is based on Bomber Graham - they were all pioneers of their style in the UK.

We get forced to listen to Reggae at Oliver's mate, was sparring to it today. I like it though so its good for me (had Bad Boys for my entrance music once ), I do think Music can have an effect on you though when you train.

Good interesting thread and lots of people with interesting and different opinions.

When I think of a British style boxer I think of a mix between a good eastern european/German and a Mexican. So basically good defensively with a low chin but when on the attack go forward starting combo's with the jab and then the short hooks and uppercuts.

In my opinion, our best boxers over recent years have always fought like that. There has only been one or two that have fought in a different way.

I see Lewis, Hatton, Froch and Calazaghe all fighting in a more 'British' style than any other particular style with their own hint of another style thrown in there. Lewis had the good defence with a very traditional jab, Hatton has the come forward attack that is associated with British style fighters, Froch has the punches and the determination and Calazaghe had the combo's.

The British fighters who use American styles generally don't get to the very top of their game or get considered as not the best. For example, Witter, Thaxton, Khan, who fight in a more American way but either never got to the top or will never be considered good enough to be the best. This is even the case for Naz as there are still many people who feel as though he had it easy and when the better fighters came along his career was over. I for one still don't think that he was as good as his results suggest.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:

Wales wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:
Wales said there wasn't any real physical difference between a British fighter and a Cuban fighter for example - but there obviously is based on DNA, culture and other aspects such as music which promotes rhytyhm - a top flight English footballer and a Brazillian footballer may train the same amount but who is the more skillful and which nation produces the better footballers on average? It makes sense that not every nation produces the same quality of sportsman for whatever reason.

Did I??

I said about Cubans...

Wales wrote:theyre skin, bone and attributes just like the rest of us.

but at no point did I try to say they dont produce a different style of fighter.

I haven't re-looked at the thread but I could do if this thread continues - you said that British fighters are as good as the Cubans! That they are flesh and blood like the British - it's like saying the Scots are as good as the Argentinians at football - they are made of the same flesh and bone! You said (I might be wrong here but I don't think so) that Cuban boxing was overrated!

Nah, your twisting my words to suit the argument Carlos. Firstly I said nothing of the sort that british fighters are as good as Cubans. Where it is measurable, in the amateur game, they have proven in most instances not to be. Its been impossible to measure this on the professional circuit as so few Cubans turn pro, usually the ones that defect and do are the best of the bunch.

“They are flesh and blood like the british” “Flesh and blood like the british -it's like saying the Scots are as good as the Argentinians at football” – firstly my point was Cuban men are flesh bone AND ATTRIBUTES just like the rest of us. Not some super race of fighter. The comparison between the argentinians and the scots just doesn’t hold water, you’ve picked one of the top 2 or 3 historically strongest nationalities at something and compared it to.. well.. the scots. The Cubans are flesh and bone just like us, but their attributes are honed and trained. Behind baseball Boxing is their national sport. Nobody turns pro, its expected you stay amateur throughout your career.

Finally “Cuban boxing is overated” – Didn’t say that at all. I said “Now dont get me wrong, anyone who does not respect the depth in cuban amateur boxing is a fool, but superior fighters they do not churn out.” I also said (which is what you’re referring to) “Personally I think they're viewed in the same sense as we view fighters of yesteryear. We rave about them, and think they're better than what they are / were.” – My personal view is that its impossible to know how good these fighters will be in the pro game. There are so many stumbling blocks, aside from the development of their talent, such as how they deal with lots of money - “its harder to get up and do you daily run when you’re wearing silk pyjamas”. Now I didn’t say Cuban boxing is overated – Christ they have one of the strongest amateur foundations in the world. But it’s a big step form amateur world champion to Proffessional world champion.

Save you loking for the thread the link is here
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=116434

Now im not saying if Cuba allows proffessionalism in sport that they wontproduce world champions, christ if Wales can produce three in the last 5 years then Cuba sure as hell can. Will they dominate IN MY OPINION no. And thats whta all this is, opinion, not fact.

michael Watson didn't fight in a "british" style i.e a standup boxer.He had generic technically sound boxer-puncher approach.


Lots of fighters with a similar approach to fundamentals, punch-picking, defence etc.. can be found in most of the good boxing countries.

I think there have been quite a versatile amount of styles on display from British fighters throughout the years.The main difference i see over the past 10 to 15 years or so, is that Britain has produced far less technical fighters.The better ones have tended to be quite unorthodox.