Are dirty Boxers - Smarter!!

Duran/Marciano were legends in this department.....

How much did Hatton's whack to the privates take out of Kosta???

Foul tactics are seldom displayed these days..and using them and getting away with it is an art form in itself as Duran showed..
and you know what good luck to him!!

Elbows, Headbutts, low blows can be a very good armoury to have as it can...

1. Hurt and drain a foe.
2. Knock a fighter off his gameplan by angering him or hurting him.......
3. Maybe buy you time in a fight...

One point is generally unimportant and you usually have to repeat offend to get deducted anyway!!

Me I only think you cheat if you get caught....All people cheat in some way in life and as Boxing is one of the hardest careers of them all are dirty fighters....

Smarter!!

The likes of Duran etc were very smart and crafty in the ring, yes, but an anti-thesis to this article is James Degale, he tried a couple of dirty tactics against Groves, and he most certainly isn't smart!!

I'm talking subtle deployment...When you are trying to rest inside and some one is either trying to put his head in your face or trying to crack your knackers...it's almost impossible to switch off...

Duran was a master at it..as was the rock.

Truss...I think you need to just re-read your OP. I could swear you just complimented Duran.

Personally I don't like cheating. If a sly low blow is OK, why not a punch after the bell? If THAT'S fine, then why not hit the guy while he's down? In fact, put a little plaster in those gloves; it'll make your punches more potent and your opponent probably won't find out...

Saying this though...I thought Corrales was clever in his win over Castillo. Spitting out the guard lost him the point but bought him enough time to regroup, gather his senses and pull off a late rally. I appreciate the 'outside the box' thinking, but...no, I'm not a fan of cheating.

Fascinating article, Truss, and definitely one to think about. I've lost count of the number of times I've posted this link, but here is a treatise on dirty fighting by, arguably, its greatest master, Fritzie Zivic :

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/zivic-dirty.pdf

Interesting that he mentions Jack Johnson as being pretty good at the dirty stuff. Seems to support your theory, I would have thought.

Hopkins is an example of a current fighter who is very good at this.

Love the way Hoppo holds on in such a way it makes it look like the other guy is holding him and pulling him around..

He is subtle and very good with the ugly stuff

If they are clever with it and get a W not a DQ. Not if they are Golota and throw wins away with needless fouling.

Golota's fouling wasn't intentional I don't think..

You don't? You might be in a minority. Surely his bite was? Some of his headbutts he lined up, drew his head back and then butted. His low blows were constant and if not intentional he was one of the clumsiest boxers of all time.

BALTIMORA wrote:Truss...I think you need to just re-read your OP. I could swear you just complimented Duran.

Personally I don't like cheating. If a sly low blow is OK, why not a punch after the bell? If THAT'S fine, then why not hit the guy while he's down? In fact, put a little plaster in those gloves; it'll make your punches more potent and your opponent probably won't find out...

Saying this though...I thought Corrales was clever in his win over Castillo. Spitting out the guard lost him the point but bought him enough time to regroup, gather his senses and pull off a late rally. I appreciate the 'outside the box' thinking, but...no, I'm not a fan of cheating.

And it makes boxing safer!

As Windy has already mentioned Zivic was the master of this. Whilst we can all be purists I actually think the lack of fighters proficient in the dark arts is a loss to the game. Robinson always maintained he learned more in 20 rounds with Zivic than in almost all his other fights. Problem is could anyone imagine pitching a novice in with such a guy now after a couple of years as a pro as both Robbo and Burley were.

Interesting article again, Truss. I'm not a fan of cheating in boxing in any form, really, because as Baltimora says if you make allowances for certain rule-breaking, then where do you draw the line? Can't deny that some have been very clever with it, though.

I've always said that the only part of an opponent Wilfredo Gomez didn't hit was the soles of their feet, but he did have a bit of method to his madness. If you watch some of his trademark blitzkrieg of punches, particularly when an opponent is laying on the ropes (hence the referee is in close to see if it warrants stopping), he'd often use his hand furthest away from the ref (with the ref often unable to see it due to the other fighter being in the way) to hit below the belt and, sometimes, even on the thighs, while using his other hand in the referee's vision to land his more legal head shots.

Eusebio Pedroza did this too, as well as a fair bit of rabbit punching, though in fairness he behaved impeccably against McGuigan.

Not sure if I'm the only one, but to me Dempsey was a constant user of rabbit punches and got away with it a lot. I think any punch such as that when your opponent is tied up and can't see it coming is bound to sap them slightly or make them angry - or better still, both.

Could say that dirty fighters are a necessary part of the sport though, I suppose. Robinson said that his battles with Zivic were vital in terms of learning all the tricks he'd need later in his career, whereas Beau Jack had this to say about Fritzie: "I learned more about fighting from Fritzie than anyone. If you didn’t learn from him, you were crazy...Not dirty, just a good fighter."

No not clever but desperate.

DURAN - used all of his bar brawling skills when his famed aggression did not work. When he could not find someones chin for the ko he reverted back to his natural street fighting self.

HOPKINS - Gases very quickly when the pressure is on him and cannot do anything but foul to buy time.

He banged Buchanan low when he was behind did he..

Thumbed Davey when he was being shellacked did he??

Do me a favor..

Freddie Welsh is an interesting case, here.

Welsh was a brilliant, scientific, boxer. As we know, he spent a lot of time in the States, where he blended his classical ' upright ' stance and skills with a few tricks from the dark side. It served him well in the battle against the great Jim Driscoll. Driscoll, also, was a master boxer and had years of experience under his belt. However, he became increasingly frustrated by Welsh's cleverness in delivering the dirty tricks to the extent that he eventually blew a fuse and blatantly headbutted Welsh in full view of the referee, who promptly DQ'd him.

Pretty clever tactics from Welsh, I would say.

If we carry across this idea that sneaky cheating is acceptable in sport we'd have to accept that the 'Hand of God' incident was OK. We'd have to accept that people like Ben Johnson, Linford Christie and Shane Mosley were all actually fine to use banned substances. It just detracts from the sport and the idea of the better man winning.

On a domestic front, the best I've seen in recent years was Matt Skelton. Yes, a limited boxer etc, but would do anything to win. See his first fight with Danny Williams (which he lost - just) as an example of this. I really liked this in Matt, although definitely not pretty to watch!!

You're being silly....Boxers get punished in different ways...Different levels of cheating!!

Taking padding out of gloves is criminal and bannable etc....as are banned substances..

Being penalised for a headbutt by a point is completely different..

Boxer has been punished..

bhb001 wrote:On a domestic front, the best I've seen in recent years was Matt Skelton. Yes, a limited boxer etc, but would do anything to win. See his first fight with Danny Williams (which he lost - just) as an example of this. I really liked this in Matt, although definitely not pretty to watch!!

Personally, I thought Skelton was a disgrace in that fight. He did virtually no boxing at all, just plenty of headbutting, holding and then hitting on the break. Still, horses for courses. I just consider it one of the worst fights I've ever seen, with Skelton being the primary reason for that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're being silly....Boxers get punished in different ways...Different levels of cheating!!

Taking padding out of gloves is criminal and bannable etc....as are banned substances..

Being penalised for a headbutt by a point is completely different..

Boxer has been punished..

Like I've said though Truss; where should we draw the line?

88Chris05 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:On a domestic front, the best I've seen in recent years was Matt Skelton. Yes, a limited boxer etc, but would do anything to win. See his first fight with Danny Williams (which he lost - just) as an example of this. I really liked this in Matt, although definitely not pretty to watch!!

Personally, I thought Skelton was a disgrace in that fight. He did virtually no boxing at all, just plenty of headbutting, holding and then hitting on the break. Still, horses for courses. I just consider it one of the worst fights I've ever seen, with Skelton being the primary reason for that.

I understand what you are saying, but I think he went in with a mentality that he was going to win at all costs. I enjoyed the fight, although it was definitely not a good advertisement for boxing!

Not really answering the question, but I was always amazed how much hitting behind the head that Bruno did. It would often happen that he would get into a clinch, wrap that huge left arm round his opponent and then pound away with short little right hands around the side and back of their head. The referees never seemed to step in either so why would he stop doing it!

I could never really condone cheating, but it is never going to be eradicated either. In rugby union, there is that unspoken technique of "playing" the ref. The great captains of international rugby quite often attempt to get the ref "on side" so they can get away with things at the breakdown or the scrum in particular. The same thing happens in boxing. Mayweather, from memory, so I could well be wrong, complained about Hatton's roughhouse treatment in their fight, and subsequently Cortez appeared to be very quick to stop Hatton trying to pound away on Floyd when he got close. Whether or not Hatton's tactics where legitimate or aesthetically pleasing, it appeared a case of Mayweather having the ref "on side" throughout the fight.

Good article Truss.

if you dont cheat then your opponent probably will. think low blows are below the belt though (hypothetically speaking), and elbows and butts that cause cuts obviously are unfair and should be spotted by the ref, but everything imo comes under the heading "ring savvy" and is fair game.

i doubt any boxer has 100% stuck to the rules, and i see it the equivalent to moving the ball forwards a few yards from a free kick in football.

eddyfightfan wrote:think low blows are below the belt though (hypothetically speaking), and elbows and butts that cause cuts obviously are unfair and should be spotted by the ref, but everything imo comes under the heading "ring savvy" and is fair game.

Biting and eye gouging are fine?

no obviously not, neither would stabbing, shooting or drop kicking but things that spring to mind that i consider minor are lewis's hand on the head to line up a punch or holding the arm in a clinch so your opponent can't throw. that kind of thing is more where i was coming from.

I always thought its not the fighters place to regulate the fight but the referees, they decide where to draw the line. Am I one of the few that feels the ability to level a "playing field" when facing a more capable boxer is a great skill to have. It's up to the referee on where to draw the line, afterall to quote Ricky Hatton" its not a tickling contest", unless you have been in the ring with a stronger and more capable athlete than yourself who is intent on knocking you out it is very hard to explain I guess.

To me its all just part of the game, if you can't stand it when the other guy tries to win then what are you doing there...

I think the important thing here is that cheating if you have more to your game than just that - isn't seen quite as badly.

Zivic - dirty as hell but could box. He took his shot at the world WW title and won it fair and square.

Marciano - better boxing skills tan most give him credit for. Adapt at slipping punches and short range chopping ight hand punches that did massive damage. Just had a tendency to keep punching the opponent until they were flat out to "persuade" them not to get up. Hell - Jones Jr did the same against Griffin.

Duran - beautiful boxer. Some of the relentless aggression and workrate was always mixed in with a few dirty shots - because he was a "will and skill" fighter. His skills were great and he could beat many boxers on that alone - but combine that with his own desire to win - and to sap the will to win of the opponent. Personally - if I was losing and the guy is whacking me in the short-and-curlies and thumbing me in the eye - I'd certainly be wondering if it was "worth it".

Skelton hitting on the break and DeGale's pathetic attempts to foul were just that - pathetic. Shouldn't be mentioned with the likes of Duran/Marciano/Zivic - who were much better boxers. Even though they boxed in black and white.

Reading Holyfield's biog is very interesting - the only fight he talks about in detail was the first win over Qawi. Great fight against a great champion. Qawi and Holyfield traded low blows and hitting on the break throughout the fight. Holyfield referred to it as "letting the other guy know you're there". Most of them weren't warned. Nor was Holyfield complaining - he was clear - when Qawi gave him a cheap shot, he returned with one - he wanted Qawi to know he was in a fight.

Good post Oxy.......

A low blow can be so taxing when you are already knackered.....or a well placed thumb to blind your opponent while you get a few in...when you are in trouble a crack to the rocks to buy time.

sometimes a point lost can be irrlevant..

Smart cheating.........and not so smart cheating..

The guys you mention...smart.

oxring wrote:Zivic - dirty as hell but could box. He took his shot at the world WW title and won it fair and square.

Have to take exception to that. The accounts I've read were that it was very dirty, and the referee actually made a comment along those lines, that he would let them both fight dirty if they wanted.

They reckon zivic-Armstrong was the worst fight in history..for the old rough stuff.

i think it adds to a fights drama if points are deducted along the way.

my favourite move was one i always saw naz do, and im not sure if its allowed or not, but he used to stand on his opponents front front before throwing his power shots, whatever way you look at it thats clever.

The clever guys do all their "work" on the blindside...

Hoppo is a master of this..

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:Zivic - dirty as hell but could box. He took his shot at the world WW title and won it fair and square.

Have to take exception to that. The accounts I've read were that it was very dirty, and the referee actually made a comment along those lines, that he would let them both fight dirty if they wanted.

He didn't win it "fair and square"? What are you trying to say he bought the ref?

He won the fight. Armstrong started the dirtier (apparently) and Zivic gave back more than he took and won a clear UD. Including knockin Hank down along the way.

Rather than cheating, I'll call that exploiting the rules. He busted Hank's face up and won the decision. You don't beat Hank Armstrong without some boxing skills. As well as a bit of the dark arts. That's my point.

As opposed to Skelton or Golota. Whose skills/mental attitude are somewhat lacking. Golota in aprticular for the mental attitude. Could have been a good boxer but froze every time he met someone good. Against Bowe he was winning before that uppercut combo to Bowe's gonads

I thought by fair and square you meant cleanly, as I thought you were trying to prove the point he was a good boxer without those tactics.

Scottrf wrote:I thought by fair and square you meant cleanly, as I thought you were trying to prove the point he was a good boxer without those tactics.

Well - I am saying he was a good boxer - that he had skills. As well as the dark arts. The whole package was good enough to become world champ. Skills without dark arts - he'd be boxing in Pittsburgh his whole career. Dark arts without skills - he'd be a journeyman for life. Both together - he became the best (if only for a short while).