name the "Style" of fighting and its characteristics

[billeau2]

We often talk of technical proficiency. We also acknowledge that like martial arts there are different methods of fighting used by professional boxers.

What are some inchoate characteristics that make a particular style what it is? For example, a Mexican style fighter uses what? What makes the Cuban fighter's style proficient? what are the weaknesses?

Enumerate a style by name, talk about the characteristics, strengths and weaknesss and if you so desire: add a fighter as an example. One can even cite a film, or a particular fight as an example.

I will start with one of my least favorites:

The Mexican style. Leading with hooks, an emphasis on engaging the opponent first and foremost, as opposed to avoidance. One interesting training of this style is fighters throwing punches at deliberate different speeds to confuse and create a feint for a power shot. JMM is an example of a great fighter using this style. He is an aggressive counter puncher, will often feint and throw slower shots initially to set up to counter/ deliver a great shot.

[greeh]

I have never understood the thing about Mexican's being unskilled face-first fighters with two left feet's and the left-hook as their only potent weapon. Most of those who fit into the description above weren’t truly world-class, as usually is the case with the most countries in my opinion.

Friggin’ Pipino Cuevas…

If I would describe the “Mexican style”, I would say that nearly all the world-class fighters I’ve seen from Mexico were very well-schooled and complete fighters by textbook standards, with every punch in the book to their disposal - everything wrapped together and implemented in a unflashy, textbook-oriented way with quality offensive work rather than a safety-first approach, with top-notch punch variety as trademark.

With that said, they are not incapable defensively, and usually capable at both slipping and using the gloves to either block or parry incoming punches.

To explain it quickly: The unflashy, well-rounded textbook box-fighter is the “Mexican style”, not the unskilled, one dimensional and face-first brawler.

To give examples of what I mean, I would recommend to take a look at the Mexican fighters during the 60’s and 70’s, like Chucho Castillo, Guty Espadas, Rafael Herrera and Vicente Saldivar to name a few of them.

[billeau2]

Part of what makes boxing interesting is the cultural function it serves. For example, do two guys just want to beat the living crap out of each other and grab a beer? Any guy knows almost instinctively that there is a certain intimacy with this experience if it is controlled and understood by all parties. And whether it is the feel of one's own blood streaking down the face...or the feel of another's face as it crashes with one's fist....the adrenaline flows just the same, and the shake, hug and cold beer afterwards never discriminate about who "won" or "lost" such a mutual rite of passage. I was taught this was what savages do....

Or is the idea to show technical superiority? to show such great technique that an opponent is beat like Sun Tzu's proverbial battlefield antagonist "the war being won without so much as a weapon being fired, a drop of blood being shed." Many people may not be aware of this....but in fact the Samurai, the same Samurai that would kill in an instant....thought it silly and beneath one to kill unnecessarily. When not on the battle field Technical mastery dictated that if an opponent was an easy kill, the opponent was to be controlled....To shed blood out of spite, anger, or unnecessarily was antithetical to technical mastery of oneself.

Antione Margarito was personally injured by the allegations that his gloves had been tampered with and so it was that this fight became personal for him. When Margarito was questioned about how he was going to perform against Cotto before the second fight he made the following statement (paraphrased) "I am Mexican...I will only stop when I have to be carried from the ring, I welcome the pain and suffering." It is interesting that this was his Coda for the fight....indeed the fight played out remarkably similar to his wishes! Meanwhile we have fighters like Max Schmeling, a guy who watched tapes and found a way to counter Louis' right effectively. Schmeling managed to parley this technical knowledge into a victory. While one fighter saw the consumation of his boxing epilogue in a bloody showdown where his will was to be tested, the other fighter saw it in the consumation of technical proficiency...the ability to take perhaps the best puncher ever in the sport and expose his weaknesses.

What drives a person may even determine how one approaches the craft and many cultures have prejudices and predispositions about how a fight should go. I say this as a martial artist where we often study these predispositions to gain a psychological advantage over our opponent, but it applies equally well when determining how different styles arise in boxing.

The most technically gifted fighters I ever saw where the great Cuban fighters from the sixties and seventies. Chief among them the late great Telepio Stephenson. Then as a kid I realized that many of my Puerto Rican friends would be taught how to box by their fathers and grandfathers. What was interesting was how my friends could analyze different punches, training scenerios and have such tremendous confidance despite the very dangerous area we all lived in....they were not ****ed with!