Tweet
Picking up from a post someone else made recently regarding Chris Eubank I thought it might be interesting to discuss a comment he made about circumventing Floyd's ubiquitous shoulder roll defence.
"People suggest you need to jab, jab, jab that slippery defensive style Mayweather has, but that is incorrect because he is waiting to catch the jab all night long with his right hand and counter. I would suggest the right uppercut is the punch to utilize against that particular stance that Mayweather likes to use, strategically thinking because it will force Mayweather to actually change the position of his right glove in order to block it and obviously then there is an opportunity to get in a left hook, whereas before the left hook would've been easily blocked of course because the right hand in that stance would be right in the right position to block a left hook.So I think right uppercut - left hook - right hand is the punch sequencing.
Eubank is always good value for a comment (why SKY doesn't ditch the dreadful combination of Nelson and McKenzie in favour of him I have no idea) and I was particularly interested by this statement. I've been mulling the tactic over in my mind for the past week and after watching several of Floyd's older fights I'm still undecided.
Fighters are usually averse to deploying the uppercut often because it exposes the head to a counter. And Floyd is arguably the best counterpuncher in the game right now. That said, I do see the logic in Eubank's thinking. It's a risky manoeuvre and you'd need both good speed and skills to execute it perfectly - which kind of rules out many fighters hovering around Floyd's weight range. Pac could pull it off. But whether he'd be prepared to move away from the straight right I'm not sure.
I've seen fighters use the uppercut against Floyd before. But I don't recall seeing anyone use it concertedly as a means bypassing the shoulder roll. Perhaps someone else can help on this question?
Eubank's comment about the uselessness of the jab seems more a damning indictment of the jab in modern boxing than anything else, IMO. It wasn't all that long ago that most fighters possessed not just a functioning jab but a hurtful and damaging one. Unfortunately over the last couple of decades it has, for the most part, turned into a half-hearted pawing rangefinder as fighters instead choose to load up the heavy artillery from the opening bell. Indeed, things have become so bad that you can often sit through rounds in which not a single jab is thrown!
Regardless of the usefulness of the uppercut I do think a properly executed, hurtful, accurate and - most importantly - repetitive jab is essential to troubling Floyd. At the very least it contests the tempo of the fight - something Floyd is determined control. Keep the jab in Floyd's face and he simply has to emerge from behind his fortress-like defence. If he doesn't he risks losing rounds on workrate alone - as Leonard did in the opening rounds against Tommy Hearns.
Of course, there is always the possibility that Floyd will come out to fight and beat you anyway. But at least he's fighting on your terms. Not his.
Unfortunately, I can't think of too many fighters who possess a good enough jab to make this work. Manny has the speed, accuracy and workrate. But I doubt whether he'd use it often enough. On the other hand his stable-mate, Khan, has developed a very useful jab under Freddie Roach. It is accurate, fast and pretty heavy. But could Khan (who is still pretty young and inexperienced) remain calm and stay on the plan for twelve rounds? I have my doubts.
Aside from these two I can think of too many others. Anyone else?
Opening the discussion up - if you trained a hot prospect about to fight Floyd Mayweather what tactics would you favour (aside from entering the ring with a sawn-off shotgun)?
Moving on - I also found this comment interesting
"But the thing with Mayweather is he is very sharp, I know for a fact he is petrified of losing because the more fear you have of losing the better your reflexes work, I know that. His reflexes are very sharp. You must be a very sharp shooter and strategic thinker to defeat him, or you must not pose any fear or threat to him in his opinion for his reflexes not to work like they should work."
I think Eubank really does capture at least one possible champion mindset with this statement. I know from playing sport that a healthy dose of fear does wonders for your reflexes. And nothing blunts their edge more than complacency.
"People suggest you need to jab, jab, jab that slippery defensive style Mayweather has, but that is incorrect because he is waiting to catch the jab all night long with his right hand and counter. I would suggest the right uppercut is the punch to utilize against that particular stance that Mayweather likes to use, strategically thinking because it will force Mayweather to actually change the position of his right glove in order to block it and obviously then there is an opportunity to get in a left hook, whereas before the left hook would've been easily blocked of course because the right hand in that stance would be right in the right position to block a left hook.So I think right uppercut - left hook - right hand is the punch sequencing.
Eubank is always good value for a comment (why SKY doesn't ditch the dreadful combination of Nelson and McKenzie in favour of him I have no idea) and I was particularly interested by this statement. I've been mulling the tactic over in my mind for the past week and after watching several of Floyd's older fights I'm still undecided.
Fighters are usually averse to deploying the uppercut often because it exposes the head to a counter. And Floyd is arguably the best counterpuncher in the game right now. That said, I do see the logic in Eubank's thinking. It's a risky manoeuvre and you'd need both good speed and skills to execute it perfectly - which kind of rules out many fighters hovering around Floyd's weight range. Pac could pull it off. But whether he'd be prepared to move away from the straight right I'm not sure.
I've seen fighters use the uppercut against Floyd before. But I don't recall seeing anyone use it concertedly as a means bypassing the shoulder roll. Perhaps someone else can help on this question?
Eubank's comment about the uselessness of the jab seems more a damning indictment of the jab in modern boxing than anything else, IMO. It wasn't all that long ago that most fighters possessed not just a functioning jab but a hurtful and damaging one. Unfortunately over the last couple of decades it has, for the most part, turned into a half-hearted pawing rangefinder as fighters instead choose to load up the heavy artillery from the opening bell. Indeed, things have become so bad that you can often sit through rounds in which not a single jab is thrown!
Regardless of the usefulness of the uppercut I do think a properly executed, hurtful, accurate and - most importantly - repetitive jab is essential to troubling Floyd. At the very least it contests the tempo of the fight - something Floyd is determined control. Keep the jab in Floyd's face and he simply has to emerge from behind his fortress-like defence. If he doesn't he risks losing rounds on workrate alone - as Leonard did in the opening rounds against Tommy Hearns.
Of course, there is always the possibility that Floyd will come out to fight and beat you anyway. But at least he's fighting on your terms. Not his.
Unfortunately, I can't think of too many fighters who possess a good enough jab to make this work. Manny has the speed, accuracy and workrate. But I doubt whether he'd use it often enough. On the other hand his stable-mate, Khan, has developed a very useful jab under Freddie Roach. It is accurate, fast and pretty heavy. But could Khan (who is still pretty young and inexperienced) remain calm and stay on the plan for twelve rounds? I have my doubts.
Aside from these two I can think of too many others. Anyone else?
Opening the discussion up - if you trained a hot prospect about to fight Floyd Mayweather what tactics would you favour (aside from entering the ring with a sawn-off shotgun)?
Moving on - I also found this comment interesting
"But the thing with Mayweather is he is very sharp, I know for a fact he is petrified of losing because the more fear you have of losing the better your reflexes work, I know that. His reflexes are very sharp. You must be a very sharp shooter and strategic thinker to defeat him, or you must not pose any fear or threat to him in his opinion for his reflexes not to work like they should work."
I think Eubank really does capture at least one possible champion mindset with this statement. I know from playing sport that a healthy dose of fear does wonders for your reflexes. And nothing blunts their edge more than complacency.
Comment