"Textbook" Boxers

[thegreenblender]

As I define textbook, the one person I can think of who embodied this for me is Joe Louis. Everything he did was very tempered and precise, incredible economy of motion. He wasn't without flaws, we all know that. But I just think the thing that makes him "textbook" is that there is no slack in his movement, every motion was well used...he got the most while using the least.

Give me some of your favorites. I really enjoy watching athletes who accomplish a lot by using their head/discipline.

 

[ssullivan80]

As I define textbook, the one person I can think of who embodied this for me is Joe Louis. Everything he did was very tempered and precise, incredible economy of motion. He wasn't without flaws, we all know that. But I just think the thing that makes him "textbook" is that there is no slack in his movement, every motion was well used...he got the most while using the least.

Give me some of your favorites. I really enjoy watching athletes who accomplish a lot by using their head/discipline.

Have you ever watched a single Joe Louis fight, or did you copy and paste that from some generic "answer my question on the internet" website.

I would hardly call Joe tempered and precise, maybe outside the ring he was, but not inside the ring. He was an attrition fighter who was known for brawling/grinding it out, pressuring and generally outworking his opponents..... Hardly a guy I would say gets the most out of using the least....... James Toney is more in line with that description.

 

[Kaiten Geri]

I don't think it's that easy to define textbook boxing in the first place, to be honest...

With a diachronic view even, nigh impossible.

 

[thegreenblender]

Have you ever watched a single Joe Louis fight, or did you copy and paste that from some generic "answer my question on the internet" website.

I would hardly call Joe tempered and precise, maybe outside the ring he was, but not inside the ring. He was an attrition fighter who was known for brawling/grinding it out, pressuring and generally outworking his opponents..... Hardly a guy I would say gets the most out of using the least....... James Toney is more in line with that description.

Are you joking? Yes, I've seen him fight. I can't believe you used the word brawl and Joe Louis in the same same sentence. He's been in fights that might have looked like brawls, but that's because the guy was trying to brawl with Joe Louis, not the other way around. Joe used pressure, but it was very measured. When I think grinder, I think Hatton or somebody like that. Joe stalked his opponent and countered/attacked with precise punches. I find your description very weird.

 

[thegreenblender]

I don't think it's that easy to define textbook boxing in the first place, to be honest...

With a diachronic view even, nigh impossible.

Not to be a jerk, but I was really hoping to avoid posts like this. The word textbook has probably been used 1000 times in this forum, so I'm sure everyone has an opinion on what they find to be textbook. The fact is, it's going to take some work to back up an argument on this subject because it is more open to interpretation than some other subjects, but that doesn't mean it is completely open. You could take a thread called "How to throw a good jab?" and say it's not worth discussing because to describe how to jab you'd have to describe footwork, timing, posture, punching power, angles....and everybody has a thousand opinions on these things, OMG to infinity, but the fact is that open-ended threads like that flesh themselves out all the time. The only difference is when it comes to selecting examples of good boxers/strikers, people fear the flamewar. I welcome it, as long as we can learn something along the way.

 

[BrokenNose]

Since we're already touching on semantics, I think we should at least try to get on the same page with what a "textbook" boxer is.

I just find that a textbook boxer is one that utilizes the basics strictly, but very well. Balanced stance, hands at cheek level, efficient footwork, and carefully chosen punches/combinations. Very vague, but essentially someone that is strict to the basics, unlike a dancer/brawler.

In my perspective, at least. But I'm new to boxing, so my opinion isn't mature.

 

[ssullivan80]

Are you joking? Yes, I've seen him fight. I can't believe you used the word brawl and Joe Louis in the same same sentence. He's been in fights that might have looked like brawls, but that's because the guy was trying to brawl with Joe Louis, not the other way around. Joe used pressure, but it was very measured. When I think grinder, I think Hatton or somebody like that. Joe stalked his opponent and countered/attacked with precise punches. I find your description very weird.

alright man, I apologize.... you do make a good point that he has been in fights that look like brawls, and given that era in boxing it was pretty common. But let's be honest, he didn't exactly box the brawlers, he brawled right back. He was exceptionally fast, first heavyweight i ever saw throw 3 left hooks in a row, effectively, and probably one of the best finishers ever in boxing.

That said, he really did have a hard time with guys who were slick and could box him (I.E: Billy Conn), hence why i never considered him a pure "technician". However, even when he was getting outboxed, he kept the pressure and had dynamite in his hands..... grind it out and found a way! It only took Joe 1 good shot, game over! Still I agree that "textbook" is easily interpreted many ways, hence my first post. I consider a textbook boxer to be a more defensive fighter that worked behind the jab, Lennox Lewis, or ..... I would define Winky Wright as a "textbook" boxer. Joe L was definitely an offensive fighter first, and wouldnt shy away from a brawl........

 

[SteelHammer]

my favorite boxers are jack dempsey and mike tyson, although neither one is really textbook. They did their own thing

 

[NuTzOnSwOll]

Are you joking? Yes, I've seen him fight. I can't believe you used the word brawl and Joe Louis in the same same sentence. He's been in fights that might have looked like brawls, but that's because the guy was trying to brawl with Joe Louis, not the other way around. Joe used pressure, but it was very measured. When I think grinder, I think Hatton or somebody like that. Joe stalked his opponent and countered/attacked with precise punches. I find your description very weird.

man u sound like a happy lil kid (in a good way) but u cant put that over on ssullivan. Guy's been around a long time with a very well respected history of posts on standup.

Joe louis might have been very textbook to the casual fan but a pure boxer he wasnt. His strengths were his incredible mental drive, fantastic straight right and jab but he was quite plodding and dare i say .....unimaginative ? He did have his flaws. Max Schmelling exposed one when he Koed him , so did some fights he arguably should've lost. A great great fighter top 5 of all time any weight but not quite 'textbook'.

you want textbook ....heres an inside guy that not many know about ....Ricardo Lopez.
Rocky Marciano's unbeaten record......he was in the Mob pocket and had a lot of fixed fights. Joe Calzaghe ......chicken shit who never rolled with the big dogs.

Ricardo Lopez ....51 wins no loss ! and its not his record thats important but his style.
Picture fucking perfect. I dare you or anybody to watch any of his fights and point out a flaw. Flawless textbook defence . Picture perfect punches. KO power in both hands from any punch whether straight ,hook or uppercut (nobody else has that)
Beautiful combinations , an educated left hand. Counterpunching ? You got it. Footwork ? Subliminal. Heart ? Oh yeah.
If u had to show a beginner how to box you would show him Lopez and say "Thats what i mean". Not a single flash move just perfect basics elevated to flawlessness.
The only possible knock on him was he fought at a weight nobody gave a shit about (not his fault). But all purists know his name. Shit i think theres even a clip on Tyson (a phenomenal student of the game) singing an ode to The Perfect One .In fact he even beat the World Champ of two divisions up (a notorious power puncher) and beat him in the closest fight of his career!

Not one flaw ...other than the joke God played on him.

 

[thegreenblender]

Since we're already touching on semantics, I think we should at least try to get on the same page with what a "textbook" boxer is.

I just find that a textbook boxer is one that utilizes the basics strictly, but very well. Balanced stance, hands at cheek level, efficient footwork, and carefully chosen punches/combinations. Very vague, but essentially someone that is strict to the basics, unlike a dancer/brawler.

In my perspective, at least. But I'm new to boxing, so my opinion isn't mature.

That's pretty close to how I see it. Maybe another way to put it would be that the "textbook" boxer never has to rely greatly on speed or athleticism...because his hands and posture are in the optimal position, he doesn't have to rely on quick reflexes to snap back into a defensive posture...because his footwork is efficient, he doesn't have to suddenly dart to avoid or attack...because his punches are precise and thrown with proper mechanics, he can do damage with the least amount of strength....and so on.

Maybe "efficiency" is the keyword. And yet...while fighting the way a fighter like James Toney or Bernard Hopkins is very efficient and works great for them, you rarely rarely see someone without great attributes pulling that off. Good agility and reflexes that come natural. To use Joe Louis again, I don't think he could ever pull off the defensive wizardry of either of those guys with a lifetime of training. Those guys stand in the pocket and dodge/block every punch and try to counter in the gaps. I think a more "textbook" or efficient route is to find the balance between a good offensive threat and counter-fighting, so you don't have to try to dodge/block every punch. You force hesitation of his offense with your offensive threat, and you balance fighting in the danger zone (pocket) with standing at the rim of his offense.

I think if you had to take a flat average athlete and give him the style that would take him the farthest, that style would be "textbook".

 

[thegreenblender]

man u sound like a happy lil kid (in a good way) but u cant put that over on ssullivan. Guy's been around a long time with a very well respected history of posts on standup.

Joe louis might have been very textbook to the casual fan but a pure boxer he wasnt. His strengths were his incredible mental drive, fantastic straight right and jab but he was quite plodding and dare i say .....unimaginative ? He did have his flaws. Max Schmelling exposed one when he Koed him , so did some fights he arguably should've lost. A great great fighter top 5 of all time any weight but not quite 'textbook'.

you want textbook ....heres an inside guy that not many know about ....Ricardo Lopez.
Rocky Marciano's unbeaten record......he was in the Mob pocket and had a lot of fixed fights. Joe Calzaghe ......chicken shit who never rolled with the big dogs.

Ricardo Lopez ....51 wins no loss ! and its not his record thats important but his style.
Picture fucking perfect. I dare you or anybody to watch any of his fights and point out a flaw. Flawless textbook defence . Picture perfect punches. KO power in both hands from any punch whether straight ,hook or uppercut (nobody else has that)
Beautiful combinations , an educated left hand. Counterpunching ? You got it. Footwork ? Subliminal. Heart ? Oh yeah.
If u had to show a beginner how to box you would show him Lopez and say "Thats what i mean". Not a single flash move just perfect basics elevated to flawlessness.
The only possible knock on him was he fought at a weight nobody gave a shit about (not his fault). But all purists know his name. Shit i think theres even a clip on Tyson (a phenomenal student of the game) singing an ode to The Perfect One .In fact he even beat the World Champ of two divisions up (a notorious power puncher) and beat him in the closest fight of his career!

Not one flaw ...other than the joke God played on him.

Thanks a lot for that, man. I'm gonna check this guy out.

 

[NuTzOnSwOll]

Thanks a lot for that, man. I'm gonna check this guy out.

lol do that .....he makes Joe Louis look like Mayorga !

 

[devante]

That's pretty close to how I see it. Maybe another way to put it would be that the "textbook" boxer never has to rely greatly on speed or athleticism...because his hands and posture are in the optimal position, he doesn't have to rely on quick reflexes to snap back into a defensive posture...because his footwork is efficient, he doesn't have to suddenly dart to avoid or attack...because his punches are precise and thrown with proper mechanics, he can do damage with the least amount of strength....and so on.

Maybe "efficiency" is the keyword. And yet...while fighting the way a fighter like James Toney or Bernard Hopkins is very efficient and works great for them, you rarely rarely see someone without great attributes pulling that off. Good agility and reflexes that come natural. To use Joe Louis again, I don't think he could ever pull off the defensive wizardry of either of those guys with a lifetime of training. Those guys stand in the pocket and dodge/block every punch and try to counter in the gaps. I think a more "textbook" or efficient route is to find the balance between a good offensive threat and counter-fighting, so you don't have to try to dodge/block every punch. You force hesitation of his offense with your offensive threat, and you balance fighting in the danger zone (pocket) with standing at the rim of his offense.

I think if you had to take a flat average athlete and give him the style that would take him the farthest, that style would be "textbook".

bingo

textbook is the way that is most effective across the board, i.e. anyone of any talent or mental level can get the most base level of success using this approach; most other styles require a certain frame-conditioning level-mental prowess or physical skillset to be used at all much less effectively.

which is why guys like toney and hopkins can still be a force as they age, cus their approach is balanced precise and determined on skill understanding and awareness; rather than recovery ability and dynamics. You don't recover or come back CUS U DON'T LEAVE OPENINGS; i.e. its like a guy you have to beat cus he isn't gonna beat himself by giving you something.

great post

and no louis isn't textbook, he is just basic and repetitive w/particular aspects which makes it seem cleaner and more tech than it is cus he doesn't get away from those things; the reason he doesn't is due to a lack of overall skill and abilty to apply the more subtle aspects, secondly his style is built around his weaknesses and strengths. Not w/the goal of providing balance and skill in all areas regardless of his ability/inability; an yes there is a diff between these two schools of thought, i.e. knowing how to box and boxing in a functionally efficient manner (i.e. knowing how to fight) lots of guys can fight using boxing tech, very few can box w/in the context of a boxing match..much less a fight.

 

[Prophetic~Poet]

Money May

 

[NuTzOnSwOll]

Money May

really ? PBF is far from fucking textbook.

dont confuse comtence for textbook.

 

[xilliun]

really ? PBF is far from fucking textbook.

dont confuse comtence for textbook.

In what regards? There's boxing and brawling, I'd say mayweather's boxing is leagues ahead of most fighters these days.

 

[lukewall]

That's pretty close to how I see it. Maybe another way to put it would be that the "textbook" boxer never has to rely greatly on speed or athleticism...because his hands and posture are in the optimal position, he doesn't have to rely on quick reflexes to snap back into a defensive posture...because his footwork is efficient, he doesn't have to suddenly dart to avoid or attack...because his punches are precise and thrown with proper mechanics, he can do damage with the least amount of strength....and so on.

Maybe "efficiency" is the keyword. And yet...while fighting the way a fighter like James Toney or Bernard Hopkins is very efficient and works great for them, you rarely rarely see someone without great attributes pulling that off. Good agility and reflexes that come natural. To use Joe Louis again, I don't think he could ever pull off the defensive wizardry of either of those guys with a lifetime of training. Those guys stand in the pocket and dodge/block every punch and try to counter in the gaps. I think a more "textbook" or efficient route is to find the balance between a good offensive threat and counter-fighting, so you don't have to try to dodge/block every punch. You force hesitation of his offense with your offensive threat, and you balance fighting in the danger zone (pocket) with standing at the rim of his offense.

I think if you had to take a flat average athlete and give him the style that would take him the farthest, that style would be "textbook".

Going by that definition, Mikkel Kessler.

 

[lukewall]

man u sound like a happy lil kid (in a good way) but u cant put that over on ssullivan. Guy's been around a long time with a very well respected history of posts on standup.

Joe louis might have been very textbook to the casual fan but a pure boxer he wasnt. His strengths were his incredible mental drive, fantastic straight right and jab but he was quite plodding and dare i say .....unimaginative ? He did have his flaws. Max Schmelling exposed one when he Koed him , so did some fights he arguably should've lost. A great great fighter top 5 of all time any weight but not quite 'textbook'.

you want textbook ....heres an inside guy that not many know about ....Ricardo Lopez.
Rocky Marciano's unbeaten record......he was in the Mob pocket and had a lot of fixed fights. Joe Calzaghe ......chicken shit who never rolled with the big dogs.

Ricardo Lopez ....51 wins no loss ! and its not his record thats important but his style.
Picture fucking perfect. I dare you or anybody to watch any of his fights and point out a flaw. Flawless textbook defence . Picture perfect punches. KO power in both hands from any punch whether straight ,hook or uppercut (nobody else has that)
Beautiful combinations , an educated left hand. Counterpunching ? You got it. Footwork ? Subliminal. Heart ? Oh yeah.
If u had to show a beginner how to box you would show him Lopez and say "Thats what i mean". Not a single flash move just perfect basics elevated to flawlessness.
The only possible knock on him was he fought at a weight nobody gave a shit about (not his fault). But all purists know his name. Shit i think theres even a clip on Tyson (a phenomenal student of the game) singing an ode to The Perfect One .In fact he even beat the World Champ of two divisions up (a notorious power puncher) and beat him in the closest fight of his career!

Not one flaw ...other than the joke God played on him.

Just watched some Lopez on YT. Really reminds me of Juan Manuel Marquez but with more power. Everything in Marquez style screams Lopez. The high guard, the slight bounce in the stance, the shovel hook. Did they have the same trainer?

 

[ssullivan80]

In what regards? There's boxing and brawling, I'd say mayweather's boxing is leagues ahead of most fighters these days.

That is an understatement........ Mayweather may very well be the best "pure boxer" ever, and if it were not for a guy named Sugar Ray Robinson, he could easily be considered the best welterweight ever.

The thing about Mayweather is not the he doesnt make mistakes, though he makes very few, it is that even when he makes them he has an uncanny ability to adapt and adjust in any situation and against the best fighters in the world. He makes guy's fight his fight, regardless of how hard guys have tried to "impose their will". Floyd will frustrate the hell out a guy with his defense, eventually leading to them giving him opportunities to counter...... and he is genius at that as well. He has the power to keep a guy with a great chin honest and deter them from brawling him, and the speed to control the distance and close the gap, but keep his opponent chasing...... add to that, he is lazer accurate and will hurt you to the body or head. He can do it all equally as effective in rd 1 as he can rd 12, the guys fitness, conditioning and commitment to training is amongst the best ever as well.

Despite the fact that I am really not a Floyd fan, If i had to pick one single boxer in history who's skill i could have, he is likely on top of that list. He may be the closet thing to a "perfect" boxer I have ever seen.

Going by that definition, Mikkel Kessler.

Agreed! Often the term "textbook" boxer is more in line with the European style fighters, Kessler, Froch, Klitschko, Lennox......etc.....

Just watched some Lopez on YT. Really reminds me of Juan Manuel Marquez but with more power. Everything in Marquez style screams Lopez. The high guard, the slight bounce in the stance, the shovel hook. Did they have the same trainer?

He sure as hell does! Never noticed that till you pointed it out, and I have watched alot of tape on him too. But the high guard, bounce in stance, shovel hook, etc... is pretty consistent with most Mexican boxers, who tend to be great technicians. JC Chavez, JM Lopez, Oscar, Marquez, Morales, etc...... Don't know if Nacho was both their trainers, but he has trained a whole lot of the great Mexican fighters at one point in their career...... Similar to Freddie Roach with US boxers.....

 

[thegreenblender]

Okay, be honest with me here, guys:

I agree with a ton of what has been said, but the one thing I still can't convince myself of, is (going with our crude definition: the style that would give the best results to a flat average athlete--also, neither tall nor short for his weight, totally average).....you really think that shelling up and countering in the pocket is the most "textbook" style?

I think it still requires a great talent, which is raw agility. A sense of balance and coordination that most people can only scrape the surface of. Incredible timing too, to be sure. But the coordination of an average athlete will fail him. A guy like Allen Iverson is said to have been juking and making 8 year olds look foolish while playing games even when he was barely out of his diapers. I think that incredible anticipation/coordination is a a gift. Sure, there is timing and skill, no doubt. But that Toney/B-Hop/PBF style only seems to work for the virtuosos.

For the life of me, I cannot picture an average athlete getting mileage out of that style.

I don't know how to put this...um, okay:

^^^^^
Let's pretend this guy is a young, aspiring boxer. No fighting experience. By boxing standards, he's incredibly average, maybe even below average, but I'd rather err on the side of "below average" in this example. Convince me that the best mold to fit this guy into is that of a shelled up counter fighter like Toney or PBF. I'm trying to buy it, but I just can't.