BoxRec

Last week Martin Fry, vocalist of Sheffield popsters ABC, generously called himself a musical "one trick pony". It seems his home city has a knack of producing equinnes of similar artistry in other forms of recreation.
Junior Witter's defeat at the industrious hands of american Tim Bradley last night in Nottingham revealed in his handlers, the reknowned Ingle's - whom I shall refer to as the ING Dynasty - a staggering cluelessness and silence when faced with a crisis, as well as his own stylistic limitations.
When you have a fighter like Witter who can throw from all angles and switch with ease from orthodox to southpaw, sometimes half a dozen times a round, I suppose it would be churlish to ask him to use a straight and forceful jab through his opponents guard to begin his attacks. One could give him the option of stance, only with the proviso that he keeps his other glove up by his chin. But no, this would be like going back to the dark ages or at least to the 1950's or 60's when boxers used to do that sort of thing. Nowadays the revolutionary ING dynasty prefers to bemuse and confuse its foes - and spectators such as myself - with arms at sides or one by the side the other up like a praying mantis or the charming art deco figurine I have on my shelf above the TV. Only Mr Bradley was familiar with Witters exhibition of sculptural poses and perhaps even has an inkling of the intrinsic artlessness of the deco style compared to which he is more of a classicist. He had studied the quirky antics Junior had developed with his trainers and expected nothing less. Ironically, what would have confused the american, the aforementioned straight left jab with intent, has not been a weapon employed by the Ingles since the days of Herol "Bomber" Graham.
I, for one, have never liked the style and am rather pleased that last nights loss may signal the end of the ING dynasty, unless of course they remember Martin Fry and go back to the straight left jab with intent and the ABC's of boxing

HG

The best exponent of the Ing dynasty, Naz, in his early days used a lot of movement. Witter didn't last night. He stood in front of Bradley, and fell into the trap of thinking his power was the be all and end all. Had Witter frustrated Bradley, and caused him into making mistakes, I feel we'd have saw a different outcome last night. It's just complacency, and lack of focus.

Gray-Fox wrote:The best exponent of the Ing dynasty, Naz, in his early days used a lot of movement. Witter didn't last night. He stood in front of Bradley, and fell into the trap of thinking his power was the be all and end all. Had Witter frustrated Bradley, and caused him into making mistakes, I feel we'd have saw a different outcome last night. It's just complacency, and lack of focus.

Exactly. The irony is that despite seeing the demise of Naz it seems Witter's fallen into exactly the same trap i.e. becoming so infactuated with his own power that he neglected movement and effective defence.

Excellent post, Harry.

Anyone picking Adnan Amar and Nadeem Siddique to do big things with the Ingle style?

Autobarn wrote:Anyone picking Adnan Amar and Nadeem Siddique to do big things with the Ingle style?

No.

They might replicate the Hatton head butt but thats about it.

Neither are capable of going above domestic British Title level.

LOL

I've got all the respect in the world for the Ingles. I know there are alot of folks out there who think they're terrible trainers, but I beleive we should look at their track record. Which other camp has had so many champions?

Despite this, their corner work -- especially Brendan's -- is beyond dreadful. I haven't seen the fight yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if Witter needed some instructions on how to adjust during the fight, and simply didn't get them, and boxed the same way for 12. It really would be typical of what I've seen in the past.

thanks chesh, i'll buy you a cold 'un one day soon

carbo has "all the respect in the world" for the ING dynasty yet accurately points to their woeful reputation as cornermen, surely a major part of their raison detre.
witter, having had a very poor 11th, sat down heavily in his corner clearly in need of some advice from his trainers and motivators only to be met with...silence. these two heralded boxing genius's had precisely nothing to tell their outboxed, outfought and out-though employer. their faces blank canvasses of ineptitude, forcing me to rethink the position of ronnie shields whose frightful advice to vernon forrest in his first fight with mayorga had previously propped up the premier division of bad cornerman chit chat. at least shields said something!

no, these fellas have made champs-a-plenty as carbo also says. but he should have completed the sentence "which other camp has had so many champions...made up of such mediocre fighters"

i suppose the ING dynasty would call that a positive

Why they weren't screaming at their man when he was posing and not throwing in the 12th, I'll never know.

Sharp post. The Ingles have a great track record. But I agree they are often useless in the corner. Whats interesting to me is that they build some very effective fighters, including Witter, who then become caricatures of themselves. All this posing and complacency? Is that the Ingles fault or just over indulged fighters becoming their own worst enemy.

Witters performance last night was all Witter - substituting posing for intensity, overrating his power, once again showing a lack of stamina and fight in the later rounds and frankly a bit gormless when someone starts fighting back.

EddieShredder wrote:Why they weren't screaming at their man when he was posing and not throwing in the 12th, I'll never know.

This is what i posted on another thread. I think Brendan was saying for Witter to throw 1-2's and don't do anything silly or something like that, when they should have been imploring him to go for the KO.

Maybe Brendan was pre-occupied thinking about what who was going to lay into after the fight. "Da Boxing News picked de udder fella"

hang on, - subbing posing for intensity, over rating power, gormless when the going gets tough - doesnt that remind you of other ING dynasty fighters from the very beginning?
these blokes have been bad for british boxing for too long.
i would certainly take lynes to beat witter now, probably inside the 12.

There is an inherent weakness of the Ingle style, but the same can be said of most training 'styles.'

Ingle fighters benefit from their unorthodoxy, but they also suffer when they come up against opponents they can neither frustrate, intimidate or hurt.

Perhaps the best exponent ever really was Nelson, who was never exposed at any level.

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...

jamesmcdonnell wrote:There is an inherent weakness of the Ingle style, but the same can be said of most training 'styles.'

Ingle fighters benefit from their unorthodoxy, but they also suffer when they come up against opponents they can neither frustrate, intimidate or hurt.

Perhaps the best exponent ever really was Nelson, who was never exposed at any level.

At the risk of reopening the Nelson debate.....

Nelson Mark 2 - the WBO championship holder - was impressive for a while but towards the end he again reverted to type and was responsible for wasting all our time with some of the most lethargic and dull performances ever to litter a boxing ring. To see a world champion happily go through a round without throwing a punch in anger is something that will always undermine my respect for them.

And against Guillermo Jones, Nelson was given one of the most gift decisions in the UK in a major fight over the last ten years.

Does anyone else think that there's a basic problem with the ING stance that leaves them prone to an overhand right?

Witter was floored with it, as were two other ING fighters on the undercard.

I'm not going to get over involved in this thread for obvious reasons, but I have to say Rhodes was brought up the right way from tender years by the Ingles, and early in his career had success.
His subsequent move has led to an improvement in his defensive qualities no doubt.
Another example is Thaxton, and we'll have to see what happens with Pickering and Brooke.
The only other footnote I would make, is the criticism of Nelson.
I agree that the Jones fight was hardly awe inspiring, but with respect, Nelson's opponent was pumped up with illegal substances, subsequently failed a drugs ban, and was dealt with accordingly.
I know how hurt Johnny was that night with his performance and I can still hear him saying over and over again something was not right with his opponent.
He did hit him with clean shots early on and Johnny was shocked by the response. That led to an introverted performance I know, but I trust Johnny and his comments were not excuses, but borne out to based on facts.
Styles make fights, styles make boxers.
If everyone trained boxers the same way there would be a monotony about boxing.
We all love the unknown quantity of this great sport.
OK Wincobank is not everyone's cup of tea - but let me go on record as saying this.
When Froch gets sparked at some stage in his career from a massive overhand left, I hope you all slag McCracken off.
Froch doesn't have a hands down approach at times, it's positively limbo dancing.
Surely Robert has had time to iron that out by now.

twenty six - agree entirely about Froch.

twenty six wrote: The only other footnote I would make, is the criticism of Nelson.
I agree that the Jones fight was hardly awe inspiring, but with respect, Nelson's opponent was pumped up with illegal substances, subsequently failed a drugs ban, and was dealt with accordingly.
I know how hurt Johnny was that night with his performance and I can still hear him saying over and over again something was not right with his opponent.
He did hit him with clean shots early on and Johnny was shocked by the response. That led to an introverted performance I know, but I trust Johnny and his comments were not excuses, but borne out to based on facts..

I had to pick up on this, Nelsons lack of performance had nothing to do with if Jones was on something or not, because Jones was crap. Jones was not exceptional, he was horrible and looked the blown up welter he is being very soft and flabby.

Jonny was having a nap about 10miniutes before he came out and I think he never truly woke up until the last 3 rounds. Either that or he needed morning cup of tea.

I have never been a fan of the Ingle style to be honest but to each their own

I like a more classical approach myself but then as someone has rightly pointed out, if people were trained the same it would be boring

Brendan after the Jones fight was laughable, having - after 8 rounds - conceded Johnny was a mile behind and needed to knock him out.

Nelson's last fight at 190 if I'm not mistaken?

Jones subsequent ban and then form legitimised to some extent Nelson's terribel performance.

He was terrible.

DavidPayne wrote:Brendan after the Jones fight was laughable, having - after 8 rounds - conceded Johnny was a mile behind and needed to knock him out.

Nelson's last fight at 190 if I'm not mistaken?

Jones subsequent ban and then form legitimised to some extent Nelson's terribel performance.

He was terrible.

Yes, you cannot fault Brendan's track record - but when you hear some of his comments between rounds you think.... How has he managed to train so many greats? The US commentary of Ndou vs Witter just eventually became a how can we rip into Brendan any more.

Ndou had his best round and Ingle goes to an exhausted Witter "he's fecked now"

And as for his references to Ali vs Foreman, and also telling Witter to shock the world and cause an upset (ummm... he was betting favourite).

I'm having similar feelings with Enzo Calzaghe corner work.

top post arbachakov, nice one.

if things are not going well i'd rather have mccracken in my corner than brendan ingle.

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'?