CHARLEY BURLEY: Analyzing a Genius

[ambertch]

question-

how much is it there not being enough trainers who know what to teach and how to teach it; an how much of it is the fault of the promoters, who want to get a kid out there and maximize their earnings. Or the fault of a fighter who either a)is so limited he can't develop the skills fast enough to be competitve OR worse yet said boxer has already reached a certain level of success and isn't willing to take direction, instead seeking to get rid of said trainer.

Yeah, I'd like to add: one thing to consider is that although many trainers still have old school knowledge, what matters are the trainers who raise fighters from a young age and feed them through the amateurs into the system required to sign with the big promoters and hence make it to the big stage.

Coaching boxing is a craft that is passed down from master to apprentice over the course of many years. Like spoken languages and native cultures, such crafts become endangered in the modern comformist world of "here's the popular/right way to do it, everybody do it this way." The modern world is simply ill fitted for professions involving the master/apprentice approach.

In Muay Thai, only a select few camps can send fighters to the big stadiums. So if all of a sudden those few camps change style, well everybody wants to get the big stadium fights and they have to go through those few camps, so the whole sport of Muay Thai changes.

 

[panamaican]

I've not read it.

Ok, thanks anyway. I found a preview on the internet and it seems like a good read but its from 1914.

 

[Sinister]

Those are the best reads. That's when people were REALLY thinking, through to the 80's. As much as it sucks to say, Tyson kind of ended the thinking phase. He was such a dynamo, and even though his style belongs to the old school, people were just caught up in him being young, fast, fierce, and a physical anomaly. Then that's what everyone wanted.

Coaching boxing is a craft that is passed down from master to apprentice over the course of many years. Like spoken languages and native cultures, such crafts become endangered in the modern comformist world of "here's the popular/right way to do it, everybody do it this way." The modern world is simply ill fitted for professions involving the master/apprentice approach.

This is Gold.

 

[joe broadway]

awesome vid

 

[panamaican]

Those are the best reads. That's when people were REALLY thinking, through to the 80's. As much as it sucks to say, Tyson kind of ended the thinking phase. He was such a dynamo, and even though his style belongs to the old school, people were just caught up in him being young, fast, fierce, and a physical anomaly. Then that's what everyone wanted.

That's what I'm liking about it so far, the deep analysis. His attention to every aspect of boxing from competition to self-defense is compelling. Even though I rarely put gloves on these days, I'm going to pick up a copy.

 

[chino0503]

one of the better threads in the stand up forum

 

[chino0503]

It's all good. I wanted to make a point in this thread, though. The video used De La Hoya as an example of the modern, more square, more upright stance, but he wasn't the only guy who did it well. Check out anything from Tito Trinidad, too. A lot of these guys had big power, so they could get away with getting roughed up a little bit to land their trademark shots. In fact, that's what happened when De La Hoya and Trinidad fought each other, booth floored each other with their trademark left hooks. Trinidad had an even more frontal stance than DLH. Michael Carbajal is another one, and went through the same Amateur program as DLH. One of the more frontal Fighters I've ever seen, but if he hit you, he got you out of there. That said, his stance and lack of lateral movement is exactly why he lost 2 out of 3 to Chiquita. All of these Fights are on Youtube I believe.

my trainer brought up the same point. he said fighters with better left hooks tend to stand alittle more square.

 

[yodsaenkla**]

Coaching boxing is a craft that is passed down from master to apprentice over the course of many years. Like spoken languages and native cultures, such crafts become endangered in the modern comformist world of "here's the popular/right way to do it, everybody do it this way." The modern world is simply ill fitted for professions involving the master/apprentice approach.

Awesome quote really highlights the problems of so many mma fighters trying to master it in 2 or 3 years coming from grappling backgrounds.

I guess it's similar to bjj where the length of time you have been a practitioner is also very important it's not enough to do a crash course you have to go away and think about it.

 

[Sinister]

my trainer brought up the same point. he said fighters with better left hooks tend to stand alittle more square.

Eddie Futch trained Arguello, who was the one exception to his standard methods (that I know of off the top of my head). Alexis stood very upright, didn't use a lot of head-movement, but he loved to parry with his gloves (which Mike does well)...but he had a right-hand that could bust a hole in the ozone layer. His defense was alright, took a lot of damage, but with a punch like that it didn't matter.

 

[BrokenNose]

Eddie Futch trained Arguello, who was the one exception to his standard methods (that I know of off the top of my head). Alexis stood very upright, didn't use a lot of head-movement, but he loved to parry with his gloves (which Mike does well)...but he had a right-hand that could bust a hole in the ozone layer. His defense was alright, took a lot of damage, but with a punch like that it didn't matter.

Is this monster right-hand due to his upright stance, or just a natural weapon of his, regardless of stance?

I guess what I'm wondering is... does a classical stance constitute more defense, where as a 'modern' stance provide more offense?

 

[Sinister]

IMO it was just a genetic gift. Arguello was built to punch with that hand. Standing upright may have added some leverage, but I think even if he bent his knees more he'd have still hit like a cannon with it. But I do think the classical posture and angle adds a but more to a blend of offense and defense.

Archie Moore is a fantastic example of this. Especially his first Fight with Yvon Durelle. His skill kept him in that, because Durelle had him dead-to-rights. Archie was able to defend himself after four knockdowns, stay safe, and wing bombs enough at Durelle to stop him:

 

[Kozbot]

that was such a pretentiously written video

 

[Sinister]

It was also correct.

 

[KO By Knee]

Amazing, simply amazing.

 

[ambertch]

but he had a right-hand that could bust a hole in the ozone layer. His defense was alright, took a lot of damage, but with a punch like that it didn't matter.

How the hell did Aaron Pryor survive that in their two fights? I haven't watched the fights but have always wondered this, given Arguello's power.

 

[Sinister]

Dude, watch the Fights. They're amazing. No one, not one single person in all the World Class Boxers he faced, pushed Arguello the way Pryor did. There was always one thing about Aaron before the cocaine took over. He was batshit crazy, by that I mean nothing could deter him in a Fight. Futch actually had quite a sound gameplan for Arguello in that bout, stay in the pocket (Aaron was actually twice as dangerous if you tried to move out of firing range, that's when he could land his left hook, which was his money punch), bang the body, wait for Aaron to step back and fire the right hand.

Arguello must have landed it a dozen times, and every time he did Aaron practically laughed at him. That was Pryor, a machine. The dude just didn't care about pain, and that kind of guy with a buzz-saw style like that (while technically sound, for as much of a scum bag as Panama Lewis was and is, he DOES know Boxing, he helped Mike beat Kalambay the second time around by teaching Mike to feint to the body and go high instead), is a nightmare for anyone.

 

[mschatz]

Woah, awesome video. By the way, the guy that is credited at the end, Harry Otty, wrote a great biography on Charles Burley that I would recommend to anyone. Burley's was really an incredible story.

 

[Sinister]

Eddie Mustafa told me he has a photo of him and Burley before he died, and I think Moore is in it, too. And someone else. I've been trying to get a hold of it for a year now so Adam can paint a portrait of it.

 

[Nagel]

Eddie Mustafa told me he has a photo of him and Burley before he died, and I think Moore is in it, too. And someone else. I've been trying to get a hold of it for a year now so Adam can paint a portrait of it.

That'd be neat. You can also contact Harry Ottey, author of Burley's biography if you need any photos. He's very amenable. I can give you his email address if you'd like.

Anyway, I've been reading some of the posts in this thread and thought about whether this stance would be applicable to MMA or not. I have no background in MMA, but I believe the same principles and stance could be applied effectively. The stance emphasizes sight, and drawing certain punches. Distance, angles, and levels/elevations represented the majority of defense. It relies less on blocking punches than the pee-a-boo/crazy-monkey.

It's interesting that this is the stance evolved from the bare-knuckle boxing, and early gloved era. Fighters had to adapt to those conditions, they simply couldn't afford to absorb punches on their arms. The older, more upright stance used by Jim Corbett grew into the slanted, slightly leaned back, hands lowered stance as seen with Burley and others. This enabled them to avoid punches easier, as their hands weren't holstered to their head. They could then get behind their lead shoulder more easily which presented another route to draw punches. There's a lot more to learn about this stance, but what's interesting is how much more it could make an opponent miss and reach than other stances.

The problem is that as the years go by there are much fewer people with practical knowledge that can teach this. George Benton is good. There's also Bill Miller, a contemporary of Futch, and trained James Toney in old styles. Here's what James Toney had to say:

"Bill Miller, he was a great old man, he sat me down and showed me tapes of old fighters," Toney recalled.

"Ezzard Charles, Albert 'Chalky' Wright. Battling Siki. People like that. Jersey Joe Walcott. Archie Moore. He would say, 'This is how you learn. This is the correct way of fighting.' So I would sit there and watch tapes over and over again, and try those things in the gym, and I would get murdered. But I kept coming back, kept coming back, kept working, kept learning my trade. And then one day it was like each of those fighter's spirits entered my body and made me fight like that."

 

[yodsaenkla**]

Awesome quote from toney

I would sit there and watch tapes over and over again, and try those things in the gym, and I would get murdered. But I kept coming back, kept coming back, kept working, kept learning my trade.

Considering everything roach has to say about toney being the most talented and skilled fighter he worked with and that's an esteemed list to choose from it looks like that is a very good approach.