Challenge on....

watch this WITHOUT SOUND and highlight the coaching mistakes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15iVURoWcL0

Lets see who knows what. Challenge on..

moderators/adminers and historians first....

30 views....

Calling out UC

How much do you know?

Earn our respect.

What you know about the real game?

You're good at catchphrase and the like, i'll give you that...

More interesting would be why you think more than a successful trainer?

Watching the boxing, I'll play with you later mate.

Just looks like he is messing round to be honest. Swinging the pads and awful lot and changing levels...

Wouldn't read to much into it... Just mucking around.

If you wanted to show how clever you are why not just do some long division?

Is that man a successful trainer???? If so, is he succesful because he gets into people heads (give 'em confidence etc) or does he just know a shed load about tactics??????

Anyway, I know nothing.

I watched the vid without sound once, saw some errors, and wondered if the resident 606 experts also spotted them.


Besides, to some extent a coach is only as good as his boxer.

I'll be honest, other than what I mentioned I didn't see a lot wrong. What are your opinions?

haha!

I'm not falling for that!

606 is renowned for plagiarism (at best paraphrasing) therefore moderators/adminers and historians first....

not sure, he throws 2 punches at once sometimes, but thats a tedious observation, not really getting much problems thought they were talking more than boxing, didnt seem serious at all, give us a clue.

Thought they were talking more than boxing?

I said no sound you dirty rapscallion.

i saw the lips moving, but now im guna watch it again without sound and pretend i knew what you were on about all along

haha mentalist.

Good to see this Mackem - I'm interested to see some genuine responses. I'm a life long casual boxing fan, but I can't pretend to debate with any conviction on boxing technicalities. I can't help but feel a bit of scepticism when hearing the debates of 'historians' over practitioners. I've competed at judo since I was 6 and have fought internationally - and I sometimes think it would be really strange if: a) hypothetically judo was as popular as boxing, and b) people who'd never been on a judo mat were waxing lyrical about technique, etc without ever having fought. I couldn't imagine having any real source of appreciation of the sport without having had competed in the thick of the action, or having went through all the training and weight cutting that goes with it.

As I said, I'd be interested to hear what some of the 606 stalwarts have got to say here.

Judo looks as though you hold onto someones pyjamas, stick your bottom out, and pull.

It's one of those pastimes for those who speak in tongues. It's extremely complicated and beyond my limited comprehension. Surely only a practitioner can watch a match and fully appreciate its beauty? As you say, it's probably the same with boxing.

That's not to say you have to compete to enjoy a fight. However, the experience of observation will be different (less analytical, more pure)

Perhaps not being able to do something makes watching it more enjoyable?. Indeed, that could be one of the reasons why I enjoy watching gymnastics. It's insane and I know i'd never be able to do it.

However, with boxing, the intricacies are more subtle than in gymnastics, therefore, owing to everyone being able to "throw a punch" most think they are a qualified expert.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why the majority of TV pundits in almost every sport are ex-practitioners (perhaps they tend to know more than the laymen............... even if they are useless at speaking and struggle to articulate their understanding at times).

I'm not a great footballer but I talk about the game as though I'm George Best. Generally, I just spout off what I've learned without really appreciating what I'm on about.

I think a lot of football fans do the same. Conversations up and down the country, no more than two people regurgitating generic statements.....

Bob: "I think they should play with more width"

Bill: "Yeah"

Bill: "maybe push up a little a bit?"

Bob: "yeah, yeah, definitely mate, push up a little bit"

Haha, neither has a clue, neither do i.

I don't have any coaching badges in football and was never more than a half decent player at a urine poor level, but I know enough to know that Iniesta is a better player than Rory Delap. I can also tell when someone has played a good pass or shown great movement and I know enough to know that my team, Celtic struggle at times because they lack creativity in the middle of the park and also that they are vulnerable in the space behind their full backs.

There seems to be a lazy assumption on T.V. that only ex-pro's can comment on and analayse on a sport. Whilst there are some excellent ex-pro analysers of various sports, unfortunately that assumption can lead to the kind of half-assed, barely there, arrogant analysis that we see from Hansen, Lawrenson and Shearer who seem to think that if "you haven't played the game you have no clue". The truth is that there are a number of excellent football journalists who offer far better analysis than most ex-pros. I've learnt far more about football from reading Jonathan Wilson and Michael Cox than I have from watching Alan Hansen for the past 20 years. Just because they can't play a perfect pass or teach someone how to do it does not mean that their analysis lacks credibility.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that I don't have a clue what the trainer is doing wrong and I'm guessing that most people on here won't. Just because they can't spot the errors doesn't mean that they can't have a valid opinion on technique. One doesn't need to be able to throw the perfect jab or indeed be able to show someone how to do it to in order to be able to spot one and comment on it. You seem to be trying to make a point about 'historians' but posters like Chris, Jeff and the captain have watched enough boxing (in addition to reading about it) to be able to discuss, with merit, the technical attributes of certain fighters. It shouldn't be the sole preserve of those who have fought or trained fighters.

Your thesis is an old sterotype that has been proven to be a load of codswallop really. Football has realised through people like Wenger and Mourino, that you don't have to be a practitioner. Hauser, Mulvaney even fat Raphel hell even Hemingway have forgotten more about boxing than most.

But to give you your dues Mackem, you have a good insight too.

Two points:

1) With regards to these comments:

TheMackemMawler wrote:I'm not a great footballer but I talk about the game as though I'm George Best. Generally, I just spout off what I've learned without really appreciating what I'm on about.

I think a lot of football fans do the same. Conversations up and down the country, no more than two people regurgitating generic statements...

superflyweight wrote:I don't have any coaching badges in football and was never more than a half decent player at a urine poor level

I think there's a difference here with football given that most armchair/pub football fans have actually played football (and probably have done for years of their lives). Whereas with boxing, the vast majority have never trained in the sport - and even less have competed. So where the casual football fan can have some form of practical appreciation of what it's like to compete in the sport, the never-having-boxed boxing fan must view the sport from a different perspective. This is one of the things that makes boxing relatively unique as a sport I think.

2) It maybe sounded as though I was backing this thread to knock non-practitioner boxing fans - sorry if it came across like that (this would of course be mighty hypocritical given that I'm a non-practitioner boxing fan). I just thought it was an interesting perspective on discussion of the sport.

Funnily enough, now that I've broken in to my 30's and I've realised that I'm definitely never going to ever make it to the olympics (or commonwealths for that matter) in judo, I've had a real notion for sacrificing one of my judo training nights in favour of taking up boxing on a casual basis. One of my good friends started training last year - at the same gym as Ricky Burns (well at least he thinks its ricky burns but wasn't really too sure if he had the right name!) - and he loves it.

jimdig wrote:Your thesis is an old sterotype that has been proven to be a load of codswallop really. Football has realised through people like Wenger and Mourino, that you don't have to be a practitioner. Hauser, Mulvaney even fat Raphel hell even Hemingway have forgotten more about boxing than most.

But to give you your dues Mackem, you have a good insight too.

I think Mourino and Wenger were decent players, even if they weren't top pro's.... They're part of the sport with an inside perspective founded on experience, as both players and coaches. They're not outsiders with an opinion.

I don't even know who Hauser, Mulvaney or fat Raphel are so I'm probably the wrong person to be questioning peoples knowledge of boxing! I just like to question things and see where i stand in respect to others. Anyway, thanks for the insight compliment... You're pretty awesome too!

Mackem if you haven't heard Kieran mulvaneys boxing podcast on ESPN you have check them out. You can play them directly off the ESPN boxing website. No need to download. He does one a week reviewing the weekend aheads boxing and goes over the previous weekend. Now he's a guy with real insight into the intricacies of boxers. A great listen. Hauser is a boxing historian. Dan raphel is an over opinionated boxing reporter.

I think you do have a point though, I could never see anyone other than a boxer becoming a trainer unlike in football.

Booth has done well, I don't think he was a pro boxer. He has a very good understanding of the sport.

Groves wouldn't have beat Degale with Gallagher or Shannon, no offence to them.

I've been on a few coaching courses with people who have never laced up a glove and thrown a fist in anger (They are cr£p and stand out a mile).

Boxers are very clicky, and often from working class areas where respect and machismo act as a currency. It would be very difficult to get a decent boxer to listen to anyone without a shed of experience.

Saying that though, I have a gut feeling Enzo Calzaghe never boxed, but some would need to confirm or refute this (its just a hunch).

Cheers for the Mulvaney lead, I'm sold and will be checking it out.

Haye was an outstanding boxer long before the adam booth connection.

Booth shouldn't get credit for Haye, he was an amazing amateur. And, this was before the current professionalism of the contemporary amateur scene. Had Haye been an amateur today he would have been world and olympic champ.

Yeah enzo never laced them. But if you remember his corner instructions, he'd remind you of Derry Mathews mum, "hit em, f'en hit em". Very constructive. I would have seen him as being responsible for getting his fighters in shape, although maceroni used to have moobs and Rees used to look like the fat.
Always thought it curious that Joe never skipped. Joe certainly had an amazing boxing brain though. Making the adjustments mid fight when his dad shouts incomprehensible foul language at him. Funny that the very best boxers generally don't make the best trainers. Must be frustrating teaching boxers with inferior skills.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Haye was an outstanding boxer long before the adam booth connection.

Booth shouldn't get credit for Haye, he was an amazing amateur. And, this was before the current professionalism of the contemporary amateur scene. Had Haye been an amateur today he would have been world and olympic champ.

Harsh to say Booth should get no credit whatsoever for Haye and I was talking Groves too

Groves also an excellent amateur with a win over degale.

Manny Steward deserves no credit for Wlad, he had a good amateur career.

Subtle changes, caution more than anything. He didn't teach Wlad anything he didn't already know how to do.

I get your point though.

If this still has interest, I'll throw my hat in.

From what I can see, the trainer is pushing the pads toward Johnson's punches - I've never seen this being effective besides what Mayweather does - knowing he's going to punch, you don't then put the pad in the way - the best trainers I've seen keep the pads in areas where the boxer is likely to hit and get used to expelling the energy. Without sound it looks like he's trying to teach how to slip a jab, and it looks as if he's giving the right idea to move inside of the left with an uppercut, not knowing if Johnson is an effective inside fighter means that this may be stylistically wrong because he's not teaching him where to go afterward if he hits or misses, but I can't tell without sound.

He's also getting Johnson to jab really high, although probably because he was about to face Fury, I still don't think that this would be effective, but you never know - the angle could be something useful to embed, because jabs from nowhere are often good bread and butter setting up actual assaults.

The pitter patter at the end is useless - but all in all I didn't see anything to be outraged at - just seems like a warmup rather than a hardcore pad session.

Listen to it now - it looks better than it actually is