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
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 18:28
by Coco
Moving forwards is beautiful when you slip shots and land your own
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 18:32
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 18:36
by brilo33
different movements are described differently but moving invading shots is always gonna sound more adtractive, than punching some ones lights out though ,
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 18:53
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 ,
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 19:48
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
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?
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 04:24
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 04:35
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.
and commentators and fans always said as much.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
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
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 04:41
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 04:47
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 04:49
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 05:02
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 05:06
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
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
superb
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
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?
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 05:10
by handsofstone
garethhop wrote: ↑30 Apr 2021, 18:26
Ask Joe Joyce
We wouldn't get the best of answers mind
...
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
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.
Re: why is moving backwards 'beautiful boxing' but moving forward isnt?
Posted: 01 May 2021, 05:15
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
and commentators and fans always said as much.
