BoxRec

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:I say put him in deep get him spanked, then he might go away and learn soem boxing fundamentals.

. Interesting, what boxing fundamentals would you pass on to the lad? (He reads this site avidly so I'm sure he'll be curious)

leforge wrote:

stujones wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:A dull Brook win on points would not be satisfactory tbh, as I said I don't see N'Dou coming here with any ambition. Why would he?

A devastating stoppage would be impressive, but one thing about N'Dou is he's durable.

I see this being a bit like Ricky Hatton v Ray Oliveira..

A big win here and then bigger names is what he needs. It is 6 years since Junior Witter beat N'Dou and he has gone backwards since then.

Yes agree, its an acceptable match up. On a par with Jennings, maybe not quite as good on paper. Should get him some rounds and experience - but its no acid test. It was an acid test for Matthew Hatton a couple of years ago - but this was a fighter who had lost to Craig Watson and Alan Bosworth.

He went 12 rounds with ALvarez he not shot.

Jon Saxon wrote:

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:I say put him in deep get him spanked, then he might go away and learn soem boxing fundamentals.

. Interesting, what boxing fundamentals would you pass on to the lad? (He reads this site avidly so I'm sure he'll be curious)

are you having a laugh? If not then here is three big no no's..
1 When jabbing pull your hand back up to your face
2 DO NOT step back with your head up in the air you will get found out at the highest level (see Naz V Kelly)
3 never walk straigh in, he always walks straight in, he thinks that this is great for drawing the lead and it is at a lower level but this will get him chinned by a smart counter puncher.

I think he's a front runner who wont be able to fight on the backfoot once hurt.

I hope I'm wrong BTW.

Jon Saxon wrote:

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:I say put him in deep get him spanked, then he might go away and learn soem boxing fundamentals.

. Interesting, what boxing fundamentals would you pass on to the lad? (He reads this site avidly so I'm sure he'll be curious)

are you having a laugh? If not then here is three big no no's..
1 When jabbing pull your hand back up to your face
2 DO NOT step back with your head up in the air you will get found out at the highest level (see Naz V Kelly)
3 never walk straigh in, he always walks straight in, he thinks that this is great for drawing the lead and it is at a lower level but this will get him chinned by a smart counter puncher.

I think he's a front runner who wont be able to fight on the backfoot once hurt.

I hope I'm wrong BTW.

leforge wrote:Also Kell has got some exposure recently he was paraded at darts in Sheffield. I read he doing something at Snooker today. All these things will help boost his popularity.

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

danfoster wrote:. Interesting, what boxing fundamentals would you pass on to the lad? (He reads this site avidly so I'm sure he'll be curious)

are you having a laugh? If not then here is three big no no's..
1 When jabbing pull your hand back up to your face
2 DO NOT step back with your head up in the air you will get found out at the highest level (see Naz V Kelly)
3 never walk straigh in, he always walks straight in, he thinks that this is great for drawing the lead and it is at a lower level but this will get him chinned by a smart counter puncher.

I think he's a front runner who wont be able to fight on the backfoot once hurt.

I hope I'm wrong BTW.

Fair enough, i had presumed you were just going to give it the old 'he holds his left hand too low' line. To take your fairly constructive points in turn, I would say:

1) i agree, but more important still is to cover your chin with your right as you throw the jab - the move that brendan teaches is 'jab and catch', the catch referring to spreading your right like a baseball mitt to cover the counter. i think kell does this well but like everyone he can at times be caught by the right hand counter over the top of the jab

2) i agree with this point as a general rule but i dont think kell is guilty of this error - it's all about range and you will very rarely see Kell stood unguarded whilst in range. he is a superb judge of distance and i would suggest that sometimes even when he looks like he is in range, he actually isnt

3) again i agree with this as a general rule but again i dont think kell is guilty of this - i would say that kell steps in and stalks his opponent but usually he circles in from his left hand side, giving the opponent an angle, and then he steps into the pocket, throws his shots then steps off.

Just my view of course, interesting debate mate

Jon Saxon wrote:

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote: are you having a laugh? If not then here is three big no no's..
1 When jabbing pull your hand back up to your face
2 DO NOT step back with your head up in the air you will get found out at the highest level (see Naz V Kelly)
3 never walk straigh in, he always walks straight in, he thinks that this is great for drawing the lead and it is at a lower level but this will get him chinned by a smart counter puncher.

I think he's a front runner who wont be able to fight on the backfoot once hurt.

I hope I'm wrong BTW.

Fair enough, i had presumed you were just going to give it the old 'he holds his left hand too low' line. To take your fairly constructive points in turn, I would say:

1) i agree, but more important still is to cover your chin with your right as you throw the jab - the move that brendan teaches is 'jab and catch', the catch referring to spreading your right like a baseball mitt to cover the counter. i think kell does this well but like everyone he can at times be caught by the right hand counter over the top of the jab

2) i agree with this point as a general rule but i dont think kell is guilty of this error - it's all about range and you will very rarely see Kell stood unguarded whilst in range. he is a superb judge of distance and i would suggest that sometimes even when he looks like he is in range, he actually isnt

3) again i agree with this as a general rule but again i dont think kell is guilty of this - i would say that kell steps in and stalks his opponent but usually he circles in from his left hand side, giving the opponent an angle, and then he steps into the pocket, throws his shots then steps off.

Just my view of course, interesting debate mate

Thanks for the responce,
Mate the Ingle style can be fun to watch but ultimately flawed to the point where his (Brendan's)defensive style will do more damge to the boxers in the long run.
Ask ANY reputable trainer about Hamed's style and they will say the same.
Kell Brook is funny to watch as he has a smidgen of conventional boxing about his style but not the supernatural of the little Arab


Remeber said this Kell Brook is going to get BRUTALY KTFO because of this flawed style.

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

danfoster wrote: Fair enough, i had presumed you were just going to give it the old 'he holds his left hand too low' line. To take your fairly constructive points in turn, I would say:

1) i agree, but more important still is to cover your chin with your right as you throw the jab - the move that brendan teaches is 'jab and catch', the catch referring to spreading your right like a baseball mitt to cover the counter. i think kell does this well but like everyone he can at times be caught by the right hand counter over the top of the jab

2) i agree with this point as a general rule but i dont think kell is guilty of this error - it's all about range and you will very rarely see Kell stood unguarded whilst in range. he is a superb judge of distance and i would suggest that sometimes even when he looks like he is in range, he actually isnt

3) again i agree with this as a general rule but again i dont think kell is guilty of this - i would say that kell steps in and stalks his opponent but usually he circles in from his left hand side, giving the opponent an angle, and then he steps into the pocket, throws his shots then steps off.

Just my view of course, interesting debate mate

Thanks for the responce,
Mate the Ingle style can be fun to watch but ultimately flawed to the point where his (Brendan's)defensive style will do more damge to the boxers in the long run.
Ask ANY reputable trainer about Hamed's style and they will say the same.
Kell Brook is funny to watch as he has a smidgen of conventional boxing about his style but not the supernatural of the little Arab


Remeber said this Kell Brook is going to get BRUTALY KTFO because of this flawed style.

Totally disagree mate.

Ask any 'reputable trainer' that Brendan's style is flawed? What, any trainer apart from Brendan himself - three world champions, five euro champs and countless british champs? How many other trainers can match that? Especially considering that the Ingles take 90% of their fighters all the way through from being 10 - 11yrs, not simply picking up already ood amateurs.

The style is not flawed - it's not perfect but no style ever could be. I'd say Brendan has probably been the most successful British and European trainer in his lifetime. He knows his stuff mate, and so do his sons and so do other good trainers like Dave COldwell and Chris Smedley who both learnt a lot from BRendan.

I dont think Kell will get - as you so violently and gleefully suggest - knocked the f**k out. We'll see but i tend to think it's more likely that he'll be the one knocking out some nice, orthodox kid with a 'textbook' high guard and all the rest of it ...

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Naz boxed for years at world level under Brendan and won every fight.

Johnny Nelson retired having been undefeated world champion for 5 years.

Would you care to name any of these decent trainers to help in your flawed argument, Jon Saxon ?

DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD

Jon Saxon wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Naz boxed for years at world level under Brendan and won every fight.

Johnny Nelson retired having been undefeated world champion for 5 years.

Would you care to name any of these decent trainers to help in your flawed argument, Jon Saxon ?

DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD

jeez you people dont know much do you?

Johnny Nelson was the WBO champ, he wasnt the real champ , Gomez, Jirov would have done him in, god you people dont know boxing do you? look at his previous tyrs at the top, Warring & Deleon, he never fought the REAL CHAMPS.

Now as for Naz, I didnt just use the Barrera fight, if you had taken the time to read back you would see that i also used the Kelly fight.
HOWEVER if you want me to continue I will...Naz was dropped by Augie Sanchez twice while doing exactly the same thing. same for the Daniel Alicia fight.
Hamed did not become great like any of the mexicans of the same era, he had ONE 'near' superfight with Barrerra just ONE, whilst PacMan, Morales, Barrera, Marquez all had a shit load, amongst each other.

And DO NOT kid yourselves if you believe that he would have came out of the above round robin without at least 3 more losses, he was smart he got out before his pride was destroyed, which in my book was the smartest thing he ever did.
AND go ask someone like the GREAT (and I mean GREAT) Manny Stewart what he thinks about the Ingle style.
The US trainers can spot the flaws a mile off.
Errol Graham, Naz, Witter, Nelson or frankly anyone who learned this style can only go so far, now dont get me wrong to be a genuine world champ is some feat (i.e Naz and Whitter) but to be an all time great is world apart.

So there you have it folks, the Ingle system is great to a point but as anyone in the know will tell you only to a point.

You know there are far to many fanboys on these boards who flap their gums and who sadly dont have a proper knowled ge or grounding for the craft, as a result there is a deluge of posters who dont fully understand the sport.

wesley05 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Naz boxed for years at world level under Brendan and won every fight.

Johnny Nelson retired having been undefeated world champion for 5 years.

Would you care to name any of these decent trainers to help in your flawed argument, Jon Saxon ?

DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD

jeez you people dont know much do you?

Johnny Nelson was the WBO champ, he wasnt the real champ , Gomez, Jirov would have done him in, god you people dont know boxing do you? look at his previous tyrs at the top, Warring & Deleon, he never fought the REAL CHAMPS.

Now as for Naz, I didnt just use the Barrera fight, if you had taken the time to read back you would see that i also used the Kelly fight.
HOWEVER if you want me to continue I will...Naz was dropped by Augie Sanchez twice while doing exactly the same thing. same for the Daniel Alicia fight.
Hamed did not become great like any of the mexicans of the same era, he had ONE 'near' superfight with Barrerra just ONE, whilst PacMan, Morales, Barrera, Marquez all had a shit load, amongst each other.

And DO NOT kid yourselves if you believe that he would have came out of the above round robin without at least 3 more losses, he was smart he got out before his pride was destroyed, which in my book was the smartest thing he ever did.
AND go ask someone like the GREAT (and I mean GREAT) Manny Stewart what he thinks about the Ingle style.
The US trainers can spot the flaws a mile off.
Errol Graham, Naz, Witter, Nelson or frankly anyone who learned this style can only go so far, now dont get me wrong to be a genuine world champ is some feat (i.e Naz and Whitter) but to be an all time great is world apart.

So there you have it folks, the Ingle system is great to a point but as anyone in the know will tell you only to a point.

You know there are far to many fanboys on these boards who flap their gums and who sadly dont have a proper knowled ge or grounding for the craft, as a result there is a deluge of posters who dont fully understand the sport.

God chill out dude ....... bet you have got bad blood pressure

simon fox wrote:This is an interesting thread

The Ingle system has systematic flaws and has positive skill sets, both to practice and to spot in an opponent. An Ingle trained boxer will not get hurt in the gym (by excessive head shots in sparring) and will have encountered an array of different boxing styles, at many gyms everyone is 'taught' the same.

The lines and blows skill set that is taught, from beginner to amateur to professional to champion reinforces coordination, balance and technique.

There are only a limited number of highly coordinated and athletic minded men to take on board the 'Ingle sytem'.

There have been many boxers who have kept the basic elements of their boxing style and had their effectiveness enhanced by training at Wincobank.

There have been few top flight (World Title) boxers from the Ingle sysyem but Hamed never boxed as a senior amateur and (really) did magnificent until he ceased listening to his trainer, Johnny Nelson was not a naturally gifted boxer, losing many as an amateur and learner pro. It was to his credit that he stuck with the Ingle program, improved and he did become a standout boxer. Junior Witter was not a brilliant amateur and many say that Ricky Hatton avoided him.

I'll not get started on Herol Graham as he is a hero to me.

I know ex professional boxers who trained at Wincobank and they've nothing but good things to say about their time there; (Dominic is a bit difficult to get along with though (apparently))

simon fox wrote:I've not met him Mick but I have heard him called similar from people who know him. His brother is supposed to be a nice kid and Dominic is a touch arrogant and has an edge to him. Still; it takes all sorts to make a World eh? Hows the little n? You getting any kip?

simon fox wrote:If I can get a night out I'll get and we will have a few, I like a beer