Savvy, Skill and Style

[Slugfester]

no it f***ing doesn't!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsFtiruIok

What's it thrive on, fucking glad handing and ass kissing? Wake up to reality, my boy. When you have a disagreement, don't be too much of a piss ant to say it. Everybody here has boxing opinions. And they are not all the same. So go ahead and tell me you never learned anything from a disagreement on here, which every thread is full of. Or is it only when people agree that you can learn? Or perhaps you too would like to suggest I am singling out poor Apples. I single out the post not the man.

Savvy is too open to use as a boxing category. It is a somewhat nebulous and undefinable attribute. Style is definable, so is skill, as my point hasn't changed.

[max baer]

What's it thrive on, fucking glad handing and ass kissing? Wake up to reality, my boy. When you have a disagreement, don't be too much of a piss ant to say it. Everybody here has boxing opinions. And they are not all the same. So go ahead and tell me you never learned anything from a disagreement on here, which every thread is full of. Or is it only when people agree that you can learn? Or perhaps you too would like to suggest I am singling out poor Apples. I single out the post not the man.

Savvy is too open to use as a boxing category. It is a somewhat nebulous and undefinable attribute. Style is definable, so is skill, as my point hasn't changed.

sorry i was joking i thought you'd get it. sorry. i was disagreeing to show your point was right by not agreeing it was a joke, lighten up man.
"don't take life so seriously you'll never get out f it alive!!" Elbert Hubbard

[billeau2]

no i get what you are saying apples. What I would like to learn from you is, when a boy attends the gym and the guys that run the gym notice this kid is determined and keeps showing up. Is it early on when the trainer decides what style is most natural for the kid and what style he is simply no good at?
I think of my hero frank bruno he was very rigid to me and joshua is also very rigid. It is like their movements are meticulously practised and practised over and over. then there is fury with his feints and his style is more natural looking, then there is prince nazeem who is all over the ring.
What I am asking is whether when starting out do young kids try all different ways and find this style lands them on their bum but they are quite good at this other bob and weave style?
I ask you this because i always wonder when watching a boxer like bruno "why don't you move more laterally or I watch joshua and it seems his moves are the same robotic moves that he has practised to death. I see usyk moves his head all the time and joshua's pre planned moves wouldn't catch him making joshua mad at himself as we saw at the end of their rematch.
Am I right in thinking that as aj was 18 when he started boxing he was too late to develop natural style but has great athleticism that he kept practising set moves.
I wonder why some guys simply only have one way of boxing and i think "why don't they try other styles?
I think if fury fights usyk he needs to spar with very slippery guys because joshua desperately wanted to catch him all 12 rounds and at the end he was so utterly frustrated that he just couldn't nail him with a punch and could have gone on if he was allowed. His style just couldn't hit him and it drove him mad.
I just wondered why boxers always have the same style in their whole career and very few can change things halfway through. Like ali never ever threw bodyshots. i never saw a body shot it was always head shots. is it maybe impossible for a man, at 22 say to change his boxing style?
Just me wondering apples great thread you made here.

There was a lad... Had two left feet, was smallish for a heavyweight, no reach... And Charlie Goldman saw all the potential in the world...Marciano was his name.

I think understanding how a fighter develops, is something fraught with unintended consequences. An person's character, their fate, their ability to learn, all can sometimes be a roll of the dice at times. I also agree with you about style, especially as a martial artist. Savate, Thai Boxing, etc are similar in that they do not necessarily make such a distinction with style. Boxing style seems somewhat regional, with different gyms, cities developing different ways. So, Savate is French foot boxing from marce, and Thai boxing looks different than Cambodian boxing...

[Slugfester]

Whops to Nathan!

I think the categories should be revised to, Savvy, Honor and Mettle. I mean, let's keep it confusing. Right?

Apples wants to use savvy to encapsulate all intangibles, from Will to Win, to Ring Generalship, to Improvisation to Trickiness. That is looking through the wrong end of the telescope to me.

Savvy comes with Experience. Fighters without experience Cannot be very savvy, can they? Some fighters learn more from their experiences than others. Experience is the sixth sense, allowing for keen anticipation some might call instinct (another loose term that is quite often bandied about freely by manicured announcers).

Just kidding at this point, though I believe it. Encapsulating what are already large abstractions by another goes the wrong way. Rather, I need to see complex abstractions completely broken down to constituents, then constituents broken down. Lemmas along the way have to be proven, or how trustworthy is the final proof? Proofs consists of video evidence or even overwhelming consensus. I need to officially see exactly which categories are lumped together under Savvy, and which can be excluded from it's domain, if any at all, since there are bound to be arguments and disagreements; and since that is how broad it is. I want to see it laid out in full, the floor plans of the mausoleum, if the super-Category is to be taken seriously in discussions, where "people," might simply fall back on it all the time, into continual stalemate without having to explain which well-defined intangible they are referring to.

The problem is that savvy can only lead to more savvy, so it has a way of creeping into all aspects of your game. Still, it should be well-defined in an attempt to make intangibles a bit more tangible and draw some lines.


Apple's adaptation to poker body, was worth the entire discussion to me.

[max baer]

See me i learn from you guys that are fighters yourself's about the art of combat so i never add much about the discipline as I don't know much at all about the art and methods of combat but love to learn. I know quite a bit about the history and the media of boxing.
So I write about combat sports from the point of view of the fan and amateur historian (albeit lacking a whole lot of knowledge) I, none the less have a fair bit of knowledge from my nearly 50 years of being a huge fan of boxing.
Guys like willow and willie and slug and bill and kara and ghost of dempsey know a heck of a lot about boxing history and queeny knows a heck of a lot (except his loyalty to some boxers means he cannot change his point of view no matter what, like his love of the big K's to his dislike of any guy who has being linked to ped's means that his point of view is clouded by his passion. He reminds me of a dear cousin I have who understands political history to such a great extent but simply see's everything through the prism of socialism and cannot ever see any merits of a right wing arguement as his whole belief system has evolved through his socialist core mindset. queensbury no doubt is a font of wisdom and his grasp of boxing history is unparalleled but he refuses to accept facts that dent his wold view and we all have older family members who are like that about things especially as they get older and stuck in their ways.
I am all eager to learn about actual boxing skills and tactics side of things as that is something I know very little about. Them apples has a huge knowledge of boxing from the point of view of the trainer and I have always gravitated towards people who i can learn from to get the best education I can get.

[The Defecator]

Just writing this to differentiate between the 3 in regards to boxing.

Savvy would refer to experience and putting things together. Timing, tricks and judgement. Many Savvy attributes are intangible. An example would be Archie Moore deliberately moseying in to get his opponent to hit him, only to find out it���¢��������s a ploy, opening them up to get countered. A non savvy fighter with less experience couldnâ��t pull this off.

Skill would refer to technical things, like balance and leverage, relaxation and knowing the exact muscles to use and which not to. Joe Louis throws a perfect left hook, Sonny Liston throws a perfect left jab. These punches are worked upon to be efficient, explosive but also subtle and untelegraphed.

Style refers to mostly a visual thing, but it also includes a fighters rhythm and timing. Some styles are harder to time. Style isn���¢��������t really anything skillful but it can add to a fighters arsenal.
Joe Louis and Ray Robinson both use very similar skills and Savvy, but have very different styles. One is fleet footed and fluid with a dancing Rythm, the other is extremely subtle and muted (poker body) but explosive. However they both use the same technique and leverage in regards to punching, both carry a near identical stance. The Savvy abilities differ, Robinson seemingly sets up his opponent���¢��������s for his left, Louis tends to lead them into his right.

Let me know what you all think. I describe them this way because certain people tend to get them confused. Mainly they associate style with skill. Marciano has a lot of Savvy AND SKILL, but a rough hewn Style. His leverage and punching technique are top tier (skill) his Savvy is top tier in the sense that he tricks opponents and baits them by appearing hittable. His style however displays himself as off balance and rather clumsy. His knockout of Walcott is a perfectly timed, perfect leveraged punching display.

In the reverse: Leonard and Robinson have a similar style, being slick and fluid - fast fighters darting in an out. Their skill and Savvy attributes are completely different. They throw jabs and hooks with different technique and they tend to use entirely different set ups and combinations in regards to their savvier ways.

Jersey Joe Walcott is another I'd put up there for savvy. Marciano is also a great example of transfer of skills from one sport to another: Marciano had been a baseball catcher, and his bread and butter overhand right was adapted from his baseball throw. He literally threw the punch like a catcher throwing out a runner at 2nd base.

[Slugfester]

Jersey Joe Walcott is another I'd put up there for savvy. Marciano is also a great example of transfer of skills from one sport to another: Marciano had been a baseball catcher, and his bread and butter overhand right was adapted from his baseball throw. He literally threw the punch like a catcher throwing out a runner at 2nd base.

When he misses a straight right it clearly looks like he just threw a ball. It looks harmless, but we know better. You would never suspect its power. I saw one where the punch looked like a girl's throw.

[mrbig1]

There's only one. Ali.

[them_apples]

Whops to Nathan!

I think the categories should be revised to, Savvy, Honor and Mettle. I mean, let's keep it confusing. Right?

Apples wants to use savvy to encapsulate all intangibles, from Will to Win, to Ring Generalship, to Improvisation to Trickiness. That is looking through the wrong end of the telescope to me.

Savvy comes with Experience. Fighters without experience Cannot be very savvy, can they? Some fighters learn more from their experiences than others. Experience is the sixth sense, allowing for keen anticipation some might call instinct (another loose term that is quite often bandied about freely by manicured announcers).

Just kidding at this point, though I believe it. Encapsulating what are already large abstractions by another goes the wrong way. Rather, I need to see complex abstractions completely broken down to constituents, then constituents broken down. Lemmas along the way have to be proven, or how trustworthy is the final proof? Proofs consists of video evidence or even overwhelming consensus. I need to officially see exactly which categories are lumped together under Savvy, and which can be excluded from it's domain, if any at all, since there are bound to be arguments and disagreements; and since that is how broad it is. I want to see it laid out in full, the floor plans of the mausoleum, if the super-Category is to be taken seriously in discussions, where "people," might simply fall back on it all the time, into continual stalemate without having to explain which well-defined intangible they are referring to.

The problem is that savvy can only lead to more savvy, so it has a way of creeping into all aspects of your game. Still, it should be well-defined in an attempt to make intangibles a bit more tangible and draw some lines.


Apple's adaptation to poker body, was worth the entire discussion to me.

Savvy, the putting together of skillful elements. I wouldn’t categorize heart or willpower as something Savvy. But since you brought it up, heart and willpower might be so significant that the 3 variables listed don’t even matter. I have often thought about that.

Savvy. The putting together of skillful elements should be its category. This would specifically involve timing, combinations and feinting where “feintingâ€à ‚ means anything betraying your true movement.

Savvy to me is still specific enough to be a label. It doesn’t just encapsulate a multitude of variables like you said.

the only things left outside of this would be physical conditioning / genetics and willpower as you said. Willpower could be defined as the mental process of not giving up. So obviously this is important if someone is capable of trying 110 percent for 12 rounds.

[them_apples]

Jersey Joe Walcott is another I'd put up there for savvy. Marciano is also a great example of transfer of skills from one sport to another: Marciano had been a baseball catcher, and his bread and butter overhand right was adapted from his baseball throw. He literally threw the punch like a catcher throwing out a runner at 2nd base.

Marciano was praised by Goldman for his leverage, as well as his seeming immunity to pain. Marciano apparently was impossible to hurt. Even when he got dropped, his legs never wavered, he was never hurt and always clear headed.