AMAZING! James Corbett and Gene Tunney demonstrating tactics.

[New England]

You who claim some semblence of knowledge, and if memory serves correct, sociological knowledge? You might understand that the conventions for how technique is demonstrated changes, along, as people have explained, the camera techniques filming technique. Fighters square up now-a-days, they did not square up for many reasons. What you consider the last word on technique is a preference....You are just too stupid to realize that. You may think you know a lot about boxing but its not a forgone conclusion because other people who know about boxing disagree with you and...I can tell you for sure that you really lack undertanding about Martial Arts, vis a vis your idiotic Bruce Lee comments. So yeah try to press your opinion by telling us how much you know cause it sure aint obvious!

this post hardly makes sense.

what are you trying to accomplish, other than rambling, exactly?

[New England]

Try to understand that the shutter speed your viewing is distorting their movements. It's amazing that people don;'t understand the filming technically is crude not so much the techniques used. You are viewing a different era and style you could say Wlad is crude in many ways too with all his holding and lack of combination punching! Also the size of the gloves for actual bouts in Corbetts days kept men leaning away (ala Ali) and allowed their feet to be planted to return counters with power. They slipped much more than parried back then other than wiping a jab.
No one noticed the lock up (under the arm pit) of the right glove and cross over with the open left to tie the left? Very quick and sneaky stuff going on then. Beautiful move!!!
I will suggest that what you think is evolved in the 60's was happening in the 30s with people like Tunney and then Pep into Louis and Robinson. Their weren't as many but the "new era" in boxing begins then not the 60's! Using Ali as a modern model is pretty silly Ali went against the "book" in most ways such as leaning back, dropping your hands, and lack of a body attack.
Tunney and B. Leonard and Pep are some of the most gifted boxers of all times including todays best boxers. As for punchers the hard punchers from the past throw with more leverage and "ill intent" then todays boxers and I doubt there's a disagreeing on that.

The really great fighters could appear in any era and be competitive, that's greatness to me when speaking of boxing history.
Ray

ray, do you ahve any idea how much more common holding used to be in boxing? do you even watch old films? i suggest that you do, if you do not. there is some flat out wrestling going on.


holding is a smart idea for younger klitschko. he has a great jab, long ass arms, no inside game, and a crap chin. he's so tall that he just leans on guys. it's all but impossible to get him to stop, unless you're enormous yourself. it's intuitive that he would hold. it doens't look nice, and it might not work against a better tier of fighter, but it's allowed him to be HW champion of the world for a very long time. it works.

[New England]

I must admit that Corbett didn't pronate his jab once. Kept his palm facing sideways the whole time. That is bad, bad form today. Maybe it was just his demonstration, but even if I was demonstrating it today, its such an ingrained part of my technique that its just automatic, so that tells me that in his day he was taught to keep his palm sideways even upon impact. That's a less evolved version of the jab than a ten year old is taught today.

The 'uppercut'...I don't really know if it was an uppercut or an up jab...? It's a bad uppercut if it was an uppercut. Too far out, no body in it, no dip, no weight transference etc. It looked more like a semi up jab to me.


There are obvious technical things which didn't really start to develop until Tunney's prime, and then quite quickly after. The next 30 years was the greatest developmental period for boxing, then it peaked, as Cuauht said, around the 60's. Or, really peaked from the 50's to the 70s/80s. It really hasn't changed since then. Just small waves due to the skill of the era.

In my opinion, we're currently in the worst period technically in a long, long time. Always exceptions, but overall, its a lower standard today.

I do agree with the poor defensive skills. One big no-no that every kid is taught upon first entering the gym..."keep your chin down/tucked!"

These guys fight with their chin up. Literally up. They hold it up and away, stand straight up etc. That's not good form, and because it's not, it evolved pretty quickly after that time period into what became the norm for the next 100 years nearly. Chin down and tucked.

I'm as big an advocate for our history, but the sport didn't start as the pure sweet science it became. All sports had to evolve somewhere, and Corbett was one of the initial pioneers. It had to change from his era. We see it changing quite drastically over the next few decades, new techniques added, things refined. IT's not a diss to these guys. They started with the best they knew, it got added to, or taken away for better things. That's life, that's sport, that's natural.

It had to happen.

i have no beef with calling tunney an innovator. that's what he was in the 20's, especially for a guy of his size.

this "demonstration" is still a very crude display when you compare it to the great eras of boxing around or after ww2.


gene tunney is a more technical fighter than ray leonard? tommy hearns? marvin hagler?

right.

[billeau2]

this post hardly makes sense.

what are you trying to accomplish, other than rambling, exactly?

1. You claim that your knowledge of boxing is such that it validates your opinion.
2. Other people who also know about boxing disagree with your opinion. Thereby invalidating a claim that it should be obvious to anyone who knows about boxing that your opinion is correct.
3. You also demonstrate that you know nothing about martial arts and are willing to spew an opinion. I can vouch for that fact. I mean....yu have countless martial arts experts who saw the value of Lee, guys who worked with him, and then you have your opinion. Even people who generally undermine Lee's fighting ability (like myself for example) do not share your opinion that Lee was a snake oil salesman.
4. The issue of Lee while seemingly unrelatd to the Tunney tape sheds light on the issue of credability. it shows that you have little to none.

Does that make sense? heres an example if it still does not: I tell you that the first 500 pound heavyweight will be the most evolved fighter and make all previous fighters look like unskilled midgets....then I turn around and say that Brock Lessnor was the best MMA fighter ever. Well you think I am an idiot regarding the first opinion but....as a trainer who has worked with MMA guys you KNOW I am an idiot regarding the second opinion....so naturally you make a connection. So now you also have a hypothetical example as well

[billeau2]

There are obviously certain things about demonstrating the techniques that are confusing. There are also technical issues that can be deconstructed.

First lets deal with the pronation of the jab, thats a good point. The so called jab developed from a straight punch with the lead hand. heres the thing: This straight punch was not pronated, it was thrown as a piston type blow, with the hand & arm moving minimally and the weight transferring into the punch as it was delivered (usually to the point of the chin). With smaller gloves this makes more sense, the punch catches the chin and the weight can either be off the front or the back leg and there is a direct weight transfer to the intended target. This punch became more of a jab as gloves got larger and as the guard was held higher and in a squared up position. If you want a similar punch the old lead hand blow was like a wing chun punch. This connection made this punch, with a smaller glove, or no glove, a KO blow...It also is similar to a one inch punch BTW.

Regarding the chin position. Remember that the head was held back and the head was usually in a false line over the back shoulder. The chin was used to bait a punch, and could be quickly slided over the back leg in a semi circle movement....Again fighting distance, footwork and weight distribution was different. You fought inside and had to know how to do so, you backed away at what is often called "sword length" vis a vis 3 feet or so, or you were attacking.

One problem guys had at that time was the paradigm of fencing. It did create a sense that attack, retreat, slip/parry were all integrated as separate actions. Jack Johnson innovated this paradigm! which made him so formidable. What you see is guys loading up the arm as they come in for the attack.... BUT!! you see something else here as well...

watch the tape as Corbett comes in for an attack, watch how he simultaneously puts his weight on his front foot JUST as his punch contacts the target. This is a major skill still practiced in martial arts...you get tremendous power when your foot hits the ground as your fist hits the target. Its why guys came in the way they did, with the punching arm coming up slightly as the foot moved fowards. The idea was to catch the guy with the punch as the foot was landing, thereby making the punch much more powerful.

Some of Corbett's stuff did look silly, such as the first punch and the uppercut. But again, who knows what he was trying to show? You don't see guys throw hooks or uppercuts like that when they fought....that should tell you something. Also watch Corbett's follow through on his punches. His hip rotation, is superb. It looks chalky because he is not throwing from a high guard. Again, squaring up was not the preffered distance back then. Guys would use footwork and feints to get in, skillful means.

Not trying to say that everything done on the vid has an explanation, but as Ray said there are technical skills displayed if you know what to look for. Try sparring and getting your timing so that when coming in for a shot your foot and punch lhit simultaneously! Not easy! And look at how much more power you get. Try taking your hand and with palm up shifting from the back leg to the front while just moving the arm half a foot. Now hit something that way...Pretty powerful yes? that punch is used in martial arts because it is unseen (untelegraphed) and attacks vital parts of the mandible Maxilla processes at the right angles to do damage.

Hope this helps

[BennyST]

The ignorance in this thread is shocking here is a fight from 1931 compare it to most the garbage we get today like the amazing super fight with Canelo and Lara.

Things had come along quite significantly by this stage already, in comparison to the Corbett era. A lot of boxing 'evolution' had happened in a short amount of time.

The 30's was the start of some really great fighters using the techniques we see today. Before then, many fighters were still using outdated techniques, though there was certainly some exceptions. It was this era that really took off though and showed that most of the stuff that was used in the Corbett era was outdated and not very useful.

[BennyST]

There are obviously certain things about demonstrating the techniques that are confusing. There are also technical issues that can be deconstructed.

First lets deal with the pronation of the jab, thats a good point. The so called jab developed from a straight punch with the lead hand. heres the thing: This straight punch was not pronated, it was thrown as a piston type blow, with the hand & arm moving minimally and the weight transferring into the punch as it was delivered (usually to the point of the chin). With smaller gloves this makes more sense, the punch catches the chin and the weight can either be off the front or the back leg and there is a direct weight transfer to the intended target. This punch became more of a jab as gloves got larger and as the guard was held higher and in a squared up position. If you want a similar punch the old lead hand blow was like a wing chun punch. This connection made this punch, with a smaller glove, or no glove, a KO blow...It also is similar to a one inch punch BTW.

Regarding the chin position. Remember that the head was held back and the head was usually in a false line over the back shoulder. The chin was used to bait a punch, and could be quickly slided over the back leg in a semi circle movement....Again fighting distance, footwork and weight distribution was different. You fought inside and had to know how to do so, you backed away at what is often called "sword length" vis a vis 3 feet or so, or you were attacking.

One problem guys had at that time was the paradigm of fencing. It did create a sense that attack, retreat, slip/parry were all integrated as separate actions. Jack Johnson innovated this paradigm! which made him so formidable. What you see is guys loading up the arm as they come in for the attack.... BUT!! you see something else here as well...

watch the tape as Corbett comes in for an attack, watch how he simultaneously puts his weight on his front foot JUST as his punch contacts the target. This is a major skill still practiced in martial arts...you get tremendous power when your foot hits the ground as your fist hits the target. Its why guys came in the way they did, with the punching arm coming up slightly as the foot moved fowards. The idea was to catch the guy with the punch as the foot was landing, thereby making the punch much more powerful.

Some of Corbett's stuff did look silly, such as the first punch and the uppercut. But again, who knows what he was trying to show? You don't see guys throw hooks or uppercuts like that when they fought....that should tell you something. Also watch Corbett's follow through on his punches. His hip rotation, is superb. It looks chalky because he is not throwing from a high guard. Again, squaring up was not the preffered distance back then. Guys would use footwork and feints to get in, skillful means.

Not trying to say that everything done on the vid has an explanation, but as Ray said there are technical skills displayed if you know what to look for. Try sparring and getting your timing so that when coming in for a shot your foot and punch lhit simultaneously! Not easy! And look at how much more power you get. Try taking your hand and with palm up shifting from the back leg to the front while just moving the arm half a foot. Now hit something that way...Pretty powerful yes? that punch is used in martial arts because it is unseen (untelegraphed) and attacks vital parts of the mandible Maxilla processes at the right angles to do damage.

Hope this helps

Yeah, yeah, that's all fine. All the basic boxing stuff is there. No ones arguing it's not. We know there are plenty of technical elements being displayed and for that era they were great fighters. But certain things have evolved since then, like it or not. You just explained the evolution of boxing technique that you're arguing with us against. We actually agree, but for some reason you are arguing with us...

You just talked about why things were the way they were, why they needed to change, and why they did change. That's all that people are saying. I don't know why you are arguing, because you agree with it too.

You yourself explained it with the pronation. You don't throw a straight punch today. It lacks power, speed, doesn't do as much damage etc etc.the uppercut changed because when people started learning how to counter it, you couldn't throw it from that far out anymore. It wasnt just for demonstration purposes, that's how they threw some punches back then. So, they needed to tighten things up, throw shorter punches and keep a more compact form.

Same with the chin high. It was fine for that period, particularly with the basic defensive posture, but now it's not. That's all. Nothing to get angry about.

Boxing is one of the few sports that really hasn't evolved, much, if at all, in the last 50/60 years. You could even argue it's devolved due to loss of numbers and talent. There's only so much you can do in fighting. Other sports come down to new technologies, new equipment, but fighting is just fighting. It's primal and no matter what extra technology comes about, it always comes back to two punching each other and who has the better skills, better chin, along with the more heart, more determination, more grit and fighting spirit. No matter how great an athlete if you don't have the chin, and fighting heart, you won't be a good fighter. You don't need to be a good athlete to be a great fighter.

Nonetheless, there was a period early on, after this video was made, where significant achievements in technique and skill was made. These guys were great fighters, but boxing changed due to these guys. They found out what worked and changed it. These guys were early pioneers and Tunney in particular really brought the science out in the sweet science. He spearheaded a movement toward greater technique, better defense, more thought behind things and it did change from this period onward.

That's why you don't see these techniques today, and haven't seen them since the 30's. They stopped working, and better things replaced them. It's normal.

[billeau2]

Yeah, yeah, that's all fine. All the basic boxing stuff is there. No ones arguing it's not. We know there are plenty of technical elements being displayed and for that era they were great fighters. But certain things have evolved since then, like it or not. You just explained the evolution of boxing technique that you're arguing with us against. We actually agree, but for some reason you are arguing with us...

You just talked about why things were the way they were, why they needed to change, and why they did change. That's all that people are saying. I don't know why you are arguing, because you agree with it too.

You yourself explained it with the pronation. You don't throw a straight punch today. It lacks power, speed, doesn't do as much damage etc etc.the uppercut changed because when people started learning how to counter it, you couldn't throw it from that far out anymore. It wasnt just for demonstration purposes, that's how they threw some punches back then. So, they needed to tighten things up, throw shorter punches and keep a more compact form.

Same with the chin high. It was fine for that period, particularly with the basic defensive posture, but now it's not. That's all. Nothing to get angry about.

Boxing is one of the few sports that really hasn't evolved, much, if at all, in the last 50/60 years. You could even argue it's devolved due to loss of numbers and talent. There's only so much you can do in fighting. Other sports come down to new technologies, new equipment, but fighting is just fighting. It's primal and no matter what extra technology comes about, it always comes back to two punching each other and who has the better skills, better chin, along with the more heart, more determination, more grit and fighting spirit. No matter how great an athlete if you don't have the chin, and fighting heart, you won't be a good fighter. You don't need to be a good athlete to be a great fighter.

Nonetheless, there was a period early on, after this video was made, where significant achievements in technique and skill was made. These guys were great fighters, but boxing changed due to these guys. They found out what worked and changed it. These guys were early pioneers and Tunney in particular really brought the science out in the sweet science. He spearheaded a movement toward greater technique, better defense, more thought behind things and it did change from this period onward.

That's why you don't see these techniques today, and haven't seen them since the 30's. They stopped working, and better things replaced them. It's normal.

Not arguing mate, just pointing things out that matter. Things change and sometimes that means they get better, sometimes it means they evolve, sometimes things are lost....And when adjudicating which situation applies it should be done on a case by case basis, not with large black and white brush strokes, thats my only point.

Throwing a lead hand without pronation versus with pronation is not a matter of evolution, it is a matter of certain factors determining what is effective and about different body dynamics vis a vis the size of the gloves worn. I can assure you that a quick flick of the wrist, followed by a quick weight shift and lead hand strike into the sinus cavity is, and always will be a show stopper when a closed hand sans big glove is the weapon used!

On the other hand as you say, a punch like the uppercut may well be a better punch in the modern era. As you can see each one of these techniques hould be looked at....Fact is both scenerios had advantages and disadvantages and talent is talent, it will show through the ages.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

First of all they are demonstrating techniques. They are deliberately showing the effects of the punch, hence no defense. Also the low guardfighting has a lot more to it. There is a false line created where the head is off the punching line but in line with the shoulder, the fighting distance is such that footwork closes the distance, etc.

Yes I understand that, but if you look at the basic stance, position of the hands etc..it's very crude to the way boxing later evolved.

Didn't evolve until the 60s? Huge gaps in defense? That is ignorant. With all due respect. Do you understand the concept of range? Honest to God, did you really mean that?

I teach range and I always say it's one of the most, if not most important thing to learn in boxing. It's not ignorant at all, to think boxing hasn't evolved in over 100 years is what is ignorant. There were great movers and defensive fighters like Willie Pep, but if you look at most lists of all time greatest defensive fighters, you will probably won't get a boxer earlier than Locche. Look at the basic positioning of the hands, the upright stance, chin up, wide looping shots etc...

Don't tell me boxing hasn't changed...lol

I will agree that when it comes to defense they seem different from what we are used to today. They hold themselves more upright for example and they clinch a ton in some of the old footage.

Absolutely, it's amazing to me the way you critique some old fighter and it's like you just insulted Jesus. Let's have an honest discussion about the sport and stop acting as if the old time fighters had some mysterious technique that we have lost over the years. We have built upon what the greats of old did, we should respect them but also acknowledge that boxing has gotten better as far as technique and skill is concerned.

ray, do you ahve any idea how much more common holding used to be in boxing? do you even watch old films? i suggest that you do, if you do not. there is some flat out wrestling going on.


holding is a smart idea for younger klitschko. he has a great jab, long ass arms, no inside game, and a crap chin. he's so tall that he just leans on guys. it's all but impossible to get him to stop, unless you're enormous yourself. it's intuitive that he would hold. it doens't look nice, and it might not work against a better tier of fighter, but it's allowed him to be HW champion of the world for a very long time. it works.

One of the main reasons the Marquess of Queensberry rules were created was because of the holding and wrestling that was going on before then. Even after these rules were brought in, wrestling and holding was still prevalent.

I have many old fights on tape, hundreds if not thousands of them and in fact one of the thing I always notice is how refs would allow boxers to really fight inside back then.

They would hold and hit, do "dirty boxing" on the inside, and the ref wouldn't separate them every 2 seconds. Anyone who doesn't see this, hasn't watched enough old boxing videos.

[Mikhnienko]

I teach range and I always say it's one of the most, if not most important thing to learn in boxing. It's not ignorant at all, to think boxing hasn't evolved in over 100 years is what is ignorant. There were great movers and defensive fighters like Willie Pep, but if you look at most lists of all time greatest defensive fighters, you will probably won't get a boxer earlier than Locche. Look at the basic positioning of the hands, the upright stance, chin up, wide looping shots etc...

Don't tell me boxing hasn't changed...lol

Absolutely, it's amazing to me the way you critique some old fighter and it's like you just insulted Jesus. Let's have an honest discussion about the sport and stop acting as if the old time fighters had some mysterious technique that we have lost over the years. We have built upon what the greats of old did, we should respect them but also acknowledge that boxing has gotten better as far as technique and skill is concerned.

The sad thing is you actually believe all this. Boxing supposedly evolving is true in some instances but acting like everything was retained, expanded upon, and improved is laughable. As for your statement that there are few if any great defensive boxer before Locche, in the words of Golovkin, are you serious right now?

Corbett III
B.Leonard
Gibbons bros
Conn
Loughran
Tunney
Canzoneri
Kid Chocolate
Midget Wolgast
Panama Al Brown
Burley
Gavilan
Charles
Walcott
Moore
Graham
Benton
H.Johnson
Pastrano
LMR
Benton

How long you want me to go for? Toney and Hopkins praise guys like Charles, Walcott and Moore but Hopkins isn't on their level as much as he may wish he was in my opinion.

His offense is nowhere near as potent or threatening and that is mainly because he is far more dependent on distance to implement his defense once inside the pocket the quality of his defense suffers greatly. **** you could argue he shares as many defensive similarities to Wladimir Klitschko as he does the other guys. Yes i just said that now deal with it.

The Great Pernell Whitaker's defense improved considerably thanks to George Benton who got him to stop running around as much, relying on distance less and it also put him in the position to counter and land punches without having to move back into range since he never left making his offense more potent. What do you know he also trained McCallum and Holyfield.

Duran's improved along with the rest of his game and became exceptional thanks to the old school pre-WWII knowledge and tutelage of Arcel and Brown. One of the most significant differences between pre-1970's and today regarding defense is aggressive fighters actually possessing it.