BoxRec

T^The style is based on stopping the other guy Fighting, When the other guy can theres a problem.

Arbachakov wrote:Graham was the most versatile and technically capable of the fighters the Ingles have had; he actually had excellent textbook footwork and could punch properly in combination.His Jab was nothing special, but still far better than any other Ingle fighter.

Yet his traits that would come to define the Ingle style were what held him back and cost him when he came up against truly well-schooled, talented fighters that were in their prime like kalambay and McCallum.

hands dangling by his sides, pulling straight back from punches too often, etc.

These were weaknesses that should have been ironed out, yet the Ingles seemed to take them and build from them for their post-Graham fighters, while the excellent footwork and more textbook parts of Herol's style were seemingly abandoned.

I personally don't think it's a truly viable style for efficient world-level boxing.It makes many things harder than they need be and only truly gifted athletes will be able to do much with it.

I've never watched one of their fighters, without thinking he would no doubt be improved considerably by fighting in a more classical manner.

Hamed, with his great athleticism, confidence and power, could have been an awesome boxer-puncher had he been taught by someone like George Francis or any of the technically savvy trainers like Benton,Amilcar Brusa, Beristain, Futch...

Whoopsy! Forgot Herol Graham.

Agreed, the Graham style requires incredible natural talent in order to succeed at elite level, even Hamed, one of the most naturally gifted fighters this country has produced, had his hands full with McCulloch and Ingle even prior to the Barrera fiasco.

As someone else on here said, the style relies on preventing the other guy fighting.

read carefully ian, my beef is largely a stylistic one. the ingles breed one dimensional fighters with a large bias towards kidology and living on reflexes. none of them jab well or straight and most are strangely weak chinned. in my original post it was the ingles utter failure to motivate their employer, Mr Witter, or give him decent advice when he most needed it.
at no point did i say they - the fighters - were shiite.
try reading my posts as carefully as i do yours.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

harrygreb wrote:these blokes have been bad for british boxing for too long.

Who exactly has been bad for British boxing? The Ingles? Their fighters?

Naz, Witter, Nelson, Graham, Rhodes, Pickering, etc? And even if the lot of them were shite - which it's patently obvious to anyone they weren't - how does that make them or the Ingles 'bad for boxing'?

I know your posting to Harry but they were good for British boxing, Is good to see a different style than the typical British tight guard stuff.

Does the ABA still have a beef with the Ingles? Never heard of any of their amatuers on the national or International teams and wern't the ABA pissed because they trained pros too?

no need to cling to the "tight guard" style. we have had brilliant guys who boxed using decent straight jabbing and hooking. this country had plenty of inventive boxers before the ING dynasty corrupted us all into thinking that defence was about running away and uppercuttting was done with the inside of the glove as demonstrated by J witter only two days ago.
if you think the ingles produced the best of british in the last 25 years then youre just not thinking.

perhaps you also thought that Don Howe was good for english football when he virtually ruled our way of playing in the late 1970's and early 80's if you want an accurate sporting comparison.

I'm not sure what your history with the Ingles is Harrygreb, but I personally believe your post - as eloquent as you have tried to make it sound - is unfair and driven by an ulterior motive...

Or is it just one of those intense personal dislikes that some people take to others?

Are the Ingles good for boxing? Undoubtedly yes. Ask the kids who couldn't read or write before they went to their gym, or who didn't have a trade.

Ask Johnny Nelson, Ryan Rhodes and Naz, (if he was being honest).

Ask someone like Jason Collins or that Russian/Kosovan kid with the film name I can't remember.

I know you will say it is a style thing, but in that case I would ask you this question.

Did the following fighters fulfill their MAXIMUM potential with the Ingles, or would they have achieved more under another trainer:

1) Ryan Rhodes
2) Jon Thaxton
3) Johnny Nelson
4) Junior Witter

The ones I think you will argue about are:

5) Naz
6) Graham

I think they over-achieved according to their talent. Look at Naz when he became just a southpaw.

If making the best out of what a fighter has isn't what training is about, then I don't know what is.

Harry makes the very valid point of a lot of the ING Dynasty's fighters having weak chins. IMO, this stems from their rather bizarre body-only sparring policy. It might save some of their brain cells in the long term, but the brutal reality of having their chin checked in a real bout probably renders them less inclined to engage and more likely to run or adopt that pose with the ineffective, swaying "jab" which is basically sending out the message: "Please don't hit me".

A fighter who's in no danger of taking a shot to the noggin in hundreds of rounds of sparring is not likely to keep his guard up. Hence the hands-down style and the fighters being accidents waiting to happen. Witter was caught repeatedly by Bradley's right hand (and some left hooks) before the one that felled him, but not once did he get his hands up, nor, from what I could hear, was he advised to do so by his corner . At the lower levels, the ING Dyn style can look spectacular, but against the elite (Barrera), or just a well-schooled world-class fighter (Bradley), it can be found to be seriously wanting.

harrygreb wrote:try reading my posts as carefully as i do yours.

Harry, this seems rather patronising. I read critically for a living. This was lifted directly from one of your posts:

"these blokes have been bad for british boxing for too long."

That is what I was taking exception to. Your words, not mine or anyone else's.

I understand your general points and they definitely have merit.

I just don't think this style should be taught to youngsters. And I think while only the most talented can get away with it, they do tend to get "found out" at some point. I'll always rate Herol Graham however.

It's not nice to see post Naz guys like Lee Haskins discard the textbook and fight in what I would call a bit of a silly style, either.

Johnny Nelson had the best style out of all the Ingle fighters. He turned his shoulder nicely to avoid shots, didn't use too much footwork - understandable as he was a cruiser/heavy - and could throw some good straight shots. However with his defensive style, he did have a handful of appalling performances where he was too cautious.

I don't like the wonky, hands down, leap in way of fighting. I don't like the one-pace, nor am I bothered about the "You walk in, I'll single punch counter you" mentality.

To be frank, while I'm from Yorkshire, I'm much more convinced by the Manchester style of aggresive pressure fighting. Short hooks, forcing the fight, building up a fan base, backing up opponents and generally going out there to get hard earned victory.

I think people are confusing their dislike for a boxing style with it not being any good. The consistent amount of talent that has come out of the Ingles gym is rare.Very rare indeed.Not just the big names, Garham, Naz, Witter, Rhodes, Pickering, Mills, Anderson, Nelson etc...The gym has also produced amateur champions from university level to ABA champions, again and again.It is remarkable by anyones standards + you have people in the gym that care about your well being and take an interest. I can't reccommend it highly enough.

Re. Johnny Nelson.He made 15 successful defences of his world title, and that is quite something + the Jones fight looks a lot better when you consider how Jones came back from his drugs ban and demolished some good champions.An awkward, strong and dangerous fighter -made more dangerous with high levels of drugs in his system.

excellent replies from everybody. though chesh's post, which agrees entirely with my thesis, is clearly the best! (i now owe chesh two pints of the amber nectar)

sorry ian, i did mean the ingles style of box training was bad for british boxing, for reasons already given, not necessarily the fighters themselves although any argument of who were the best brits of the last 25-30 years tends to ignore ING dynasty fighters (except naz and herol) and favour people like conteh, benn, eubank, minter, calzaghe, watson, hope, jones. and when i look at those names i realise that they are all so different stylistically yet each of them did the simple, basic things very well, they all had a good chin and none of them stunk the place out.

big lennox wrote:I think people are confusing their dislike for a boxing style with it not being any good. The consistent amount of talent that has come out of the Ingles gym is rare.Very rare indeed.Not just the big names, Garham, Naz, Witter, Rhodes, Pickering, Mills, Anderson, Nelson etc...The gym has also produced amateur champions from university level to ABA champions, again and again.It is remarkable by anyones standards + you have people in the gym that care about your well being and take an interest. I can't reccommend it highly enough.

Re. Johnny Nelson.He made 15 successful defences of his world title, and that is quite something + the Jones fight looks a lot better when you consider how Jones came back from his drugs ban and demolished some good champions.An awkward, strong and dangerous fighter -made more dangerous with high levels of drugs in his system.

yeah i agree with that.

they've a lot to be proud of at that gym.

one could almost make a case for the ING dynasty style having a seperate pugilistic category from boxing.

maelstrom made the absurd point that "kids couldnt read or write before they went to the ingles gym"
well, if the ING dynasty teaches basic sports journalism within its confines i take back all my criticisms.

Which local gym has taken as many local fighters as the Ingles to World/European/British Level? Like them or loateh them, their record is second to none in that respect.

Yes their style isn't perfect BUT they are the best teachers of footwork, timing and balance in the UK.

I'm not sure if anyone in the UK are better trainers despite the outlined weaknesses in this thread.

there is a certain merit in taking local fighters to world level but it may be at the cost of our valuation of what a world level boxer should be.

harrygreb wrote:there is a certain merit in taking local fighters to world level but it may be at the cost of our valuation of what a world level boxer should be.

Hamed/Witter/Nelson/Graham all world level, Hamed made it to P4P top5, but world level fighters do lose, everyone loses at some stage, that includes Ray Robinson, Ali, Louis (no there hasnt been an Ingle fighter of that quality), every fight has limitations and weaknesses.

Its all about numbers, the more Fighters you work with the greater the chance you have of getting a good one. not to long ago I was told Brendan had 80 pros. Of the top of my Head I think every Fighter Bobby Neil had won something, well done Bobby.

ali, louis and robinson?

apart from herol and hamed, who have they produced to even lace the gloves of conteh, benn and the others i named, all of whom lost plenty of fights?

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

harrygreb wrote:there is a certain merit in taking local fighters to world level but it may be at the cost of our valuation of what a world level boxer should be.

Hamed/Witter/Nelson/Graham all world level, Hamed made it to P4P top5, but world level fighters do lose, everyone loses at some stage, that includes Ray Robinson, Ali, Louis (no there hasnt been an Ingle fighter of that quality), every fight has limitations and weaknesses.

Never was P4P #5 on my list....I think #9 is where I had him at his highest. Remember getting a bit slated for that prior to the Barrera fight on Boxingranks.

Harry G,
Whilst I do respect your opinion, you are a patronising .... aren't you ?
First of all you have a pop at a journo who plies his trade critically reading and assessing pieces, then you describe Maelstrom as absurd when he raised the point about the Wincobank gym and its tireless work turning potential crime statistics into decent hard working lads.
No they dont all become pro boxers.
Some have successful am careers as Big Lennox has pointed out.
Some simply dont make it at all.
However, I've lost count of the kids I've seen walk into that gym, and YES illiterate but walk out decent citizens, going to college to learn basic skills.
Changed for the better by a strict training regime, and a persuasion from others that they're destined for disaster if they don't change their ways.
Big Lennox, if he chooses, will cite you examples.
I dont see that anything that Wincobank has achieved has to be justified.

I think the scientific probability of a single gym in a provincial city in England being able to turn out so many good fighters is extremely low, so the natural inference is that the Ingles have been doing something special indeed.
I think there are two key elements that need to be hammered out here:
1) To claim the 'Ingle style' is worse than a conventional boxing style means that the critic must believe that fighters such as Naz, Rhodes, Nelson etc, would have been more effective and achieved more if they'd been trained and adopted a more conventional style. I personally think this is a highly contentious claim and hard to substantiate.
2) In a bid to reconcile this between the two 'opposing' camps I'm inclined to use a football analogy. If Wimbledon, during the days of their 'Crazy Gang' line-up, had attempted to play Dutch-style total football, they'd never have made it into the first division. However, their style allowed them to beat Liverpool in the FA Cup Final, while never seriously being able to challenge for top league honours.
In the same manner, the 'Ingle style' allows the boxers from that gym to beat many fighters - the fact that the shortcomings in the style are exposed at world-class level is no reason to completely abandon it. Indeed, relating to my first point, you can argue it allows those fighters to get to that level in the first place, whereas a more conventional style would have seen them struggling to get out of British title contention.
There's no doubt to my mind that fighters like Nelson 'over-achieved' thanks to their adoption of the 'Ingle style', rather than being hampered and held back by it.

I do understand where harrygreb is coming from when it comes to the Ingle stable of boxers. It does rely on the talented athletical ability of quick reflexes and speed built around defensiveness combined with an awkward switch hitting approach that throws conventional fighters off kilter and leaves them often times frustrated. It obviously helps the case if his fighters have power in their hands.

As a spectacle it does leave a lot to be desired IMO, but it has its place. Conventional fighters will have to work out a way to combat it (like Bradley did the other night). There are flaws in the template he has desgned for his fighters, but the opponent will need to have a good/high level of sound fundamentals and an solid ability and temperament themselves to overcome it..

This, I think, is why Ingle has been so successful and deserves credit. Training boxers from grassroots over the years has given him an insight into how to work around/mess up conventional approaches that were pretty much systematic for years. He has boxers that have come through and performed at the high end and will probably have a whole bunch of kids to follow, one or two that will come through (sorry harry the ING dynasty will continue).

For me, that style of boxing, at the top end, is best suited to young fighters whose reflexes, speed and timing are at their optimum. Hit and not being hit is fine when a fighter has those honed qualities. But if they are beginning to get caught more than they are used to and have ever experienced, then the other qualities of being a top level fighter comes into play.

I know this has nowt to do with Harry's points but just to expand on twenty six's views...Brendan Ingle has done an amazing job in setting disaffected youth on a decent path. Some might have slipped through the net but he's helped hundreds.

Anyone who has spent any time with Brendan knows he's the unofficial talking champ of Britain but as he knows I'm a teacher he talks to me more about education than boxing. His enthusiasm and fire absolutely drains me.

As I said, nowt to do with boxing but just wanted to say this.

Definitely, he's a good social force. Also, he was interested in bringing a bit of showbiz into boxing, which I think helped Naz become such a big commodity.

Can't argue with their success - Bomber Graham running McCallum close, Johnny Nelson's run as WBO cruiser champion, Hamed winning a lot of big fights, Witter belatedly becoming WBC champ which he retained twice - and all the domestic level champs. A lot of guys going on to achieve considerable success in their lives.

It's just a shame to see the style get shown up a bit at world level. Of all the fighters Naz could have made his style work at the absolute highest level but he went power crazy once he started defending his world title.

Anyway, the internet is a perfect place to shit on ppl while they are down. Once they have an upswing in fortunes they'll be getting praise again.

Ian,
Thanks for backing my post up.
Unless you have seen Brendan operate on a regular basis and had the time to listen to what he has to say about ALL things - not just boxing, it is sometimes difficult to portray him in the manner he deserves.
I appreciate this is somewhat moving away fom the thread, but I find it hard to read stern criticism of a man for whom I have the greatest of respect.
It's up to Dominic and John to take up the mantle, a job they are well capable of achieving.
It will be a sad day if Greb's forecast comes to fruition, not only for British boxing, but for the 100's of kids who will pass through those doors, and become better people for it.
The last few years have sometimes been difficult for me, with Rhodes departure from the gym, but I do know behind all the banter that they know I would never hear anything detrimental said about the gym at all.
The dynasty will continue, and yes at times it will be flawed - BUT SO WHAT ?
Every trainer in the UK can have holes picked in their styles and regimes not just the Ingles.