Sparring: 3 weeks out of tournament 2014

Andre Ward

Roy Jones was asked who he would have least liked to fight in his prime? Bernard Hopkins was asked who the best boxer in the world is today? The name Andre Ward doesn't show faces of a boxer when you search it on google. But for those who understand boxing like Hopkins and Jones, Andre Ward IS the name in boxing right now. For several years now I have been watching boxing as much and as closely as possible, up to 60 hours some weeks. Watching certain fighters styles and tactics. At first it is very confusing, it is hiding in plain sight, you can sit right next to someone who doesn't understand on your level and see two different things. Just as curious is that for some reason you understand or experience different things in boxing you can watch the same fight again, a day or a year on and realize that you are watching a completely different fight, and just like a beginner you had no idea what you didn't know. As my knowledge grew, I wondered why I wasn't seeing 'everything' from boxers. I saw effective things, amazing things in fact, but not the 'everything' that i was seeking, I came up with my own picture of a perfect fighter, and it wasn't Sugar Ray Robinson. Unfortunately it defiantly wasn't James Toney who I love, or even more disappointing Floyd Mayweather or Bernard Hopkins. The closest I came was Mike Macculum, but still he wast 'everything'. Little did I know, just as I was watching hours and hours of boxing nerdishly, so was a fighter I had not heard of. The first time I saw the name Andre Ward, I heard someone had outpointed Mikkel Kessler, something only another favorite of mine Joe Calzageh had done, in a tough fight few years back. His name was Andre Ward, and I found a copy of the fight. The first thing I thought ,and I have witnesses, Is this it what i've been waiting for, the style I was trying to create and teach, someone who is 'everything'. Where does he sit amongst the mythical pound for pound ratings? Currently myself and many others have dared to place him number one, amazing considering Floyd Mayweather and Bernard Hopkins are still active and easily are two of the best fighters EVER and a hysterical contingent of Manny Pacquiou fans who actually understand very little of the sport. This is presumptuous, as he has yet to achieve a hall of fame career, but I will go a step further and say despite this being so early in his career, I rank him number two pound for pound best fighters ever. No one will ever do what Ray Robinson did, he never lost as an amateur, and his record overshadows and technical ability's any future boxers hold over him. So here is my take on Ward and why I in fact rate him so highly. Firstly he is a winner, he has never lost, he started fighting at 12 went on to win a gold medal, at at fight 19 totally bewildered Mikkel Kessler, a guy who has seen everything modern boxing has to offer. Now lets get technical. What is it that makes me rate Ward so highly and why I rate him higher than anyone else except Robinson. Andre Ward most closely resembles a blueprint style created by Bernard Hopkins, a style using frustrating techniques of repositioning, spoiling, feinting and rough infighting to negate opponents while gradually breaking them down, mentally as much as physically. He does this much better than Hopkins for several reasons, most importantly superiority in fundamental positioning and power development. Hopkins also fights much taller and enjoyed being the bigger man throughout almost all of his career, Hopkins never really uses the crouch and as such uses his legs more often and loses a huge offensive weapon and ability to out jab opponents while generating more power. Ward uses his hands to control opponents much like Floyd Mayweather, and has a similarly spoiler style, but Floyd either stands tall with a guard to pressure, or potshots for his offense, perhaps due to his reach advantages on ever opponent he has faced. Boxing IQ gives Floyd trouble for a reason, all the 'Ali' type 'mistakes' Floyd makes, like leaving his chin up, leading with hooks and rights, walking forward with his left down, not using a rhythm, pulling and walking straight back and hanging out on the ropes, all horrible and usually costly mistakes that he is not getting paid for because guys just aren't good enough, Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard and Ray Robinson would have taken these home with them, and things that should NEVER I mean NEVER be done. Ward uses his jab far better and attacks from the crouch using his shoulder to defend sometimes but not getting into deep rolls like Floyd or Toney. Also he fights using angles much more than Floyd, not saying Floyd does not know angles, but he does not NEED them like Ward as Floyd can very often stand in the middle and pot shot and roll, Ward must work his way in in a much more traditional way. And by traditional I mean like the fighters in the 40's and 50's such as Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis and Jersey Joe Walcott not the current guard up and walk Miguel Cotto Types. Also Floyd suffers again in positioning against southpaws, his feet and stance are not sophisticated against lefty's and his roll leaves him vulnerable to lefts. He was out positioned the entire fight against Zab Judah, who unfortunately is just not in his league, would have been interesting to see him verse Sweat pea or a young Cassamyor. Wards ability To punish an maul inside closely resembles one of my most favorite fighters the great Carlos Monozon. Once inside, in the clinch, they will punish you, push you and beat you. Similar to Monzon it is very difficult to out box Ward but in this case because of his angles, this again gives Ward the edge as Monzon enjoyed such physical advantages on hi opponents it has to be viewed relatively. So what does Ward do that Ray Robison doesn't or vise versa. Fundamentally Ward wont knock out bigger guys with one punch like Ray. Ray was a fantastic puncher, one of the two three or hardest south of middle weight ever. Ray could out brawl the boxers and box the brawlers. It remains to be seen how Ward changes as he ages or goes up in weight. Robinson used his legs and rolled around much more as he was out weighed so much in his fights with very very tough guys, much as Floyd and Hopkins conserve energy against the bigger or younger opponents. Right now Ward is stronger and more energetic than everyone, I believe he will only lose if he gets man handled by a stronger opponent or overtired due something like age or a great jab. His glove and arm blocking also wont be as effective against much bigger opponents if he goes up against someone much heavier he may have to use the roll much more like Floyd and Toney do to bigger opponents to negate getting pushed around by size advantages. But Ray didn't crouch or use great body angles like Joe Louis, although outweighed so often, he was also taller than most of his opponents and had distinct advantages in boxing knowledge. the pedigree of flashy pure boxer types is I believe higher these days. Although not complete fighters by a long shot, Andre Direll, Chad Dawson and Jean Pascal are as explosive and physical as well as skilled at certain things as any boxer, defiantly a different competitive field to Robinson's Middleweight landscape. So what has Andre Ward got at this stage of his career when it all comes together? He is a complete as almost any boxer, he has the ability and options to adjust to win against almost all competition, with he fundamental angles of the old masters of boxing, the ability to adjust to lefty's, the speed of foot and instincts of Ray Leonard, the consistency of Marvin Haggler all tied together with the frustrating spoiler, counter, clinch, conservative style of Bernard Hopkins. In short the only way I think is the way to box that gives you the most chance to win and the least chance to loose.

The right thing vs the wrong thing

After watching the way the great Anderson Silva defeated Yushin Okami in their rematch at UFC 134, it reminded me of Mike Tyson’s observations at ringside of Anderson's team mate Lyoto Machida at UFC 98 when Mike predicted the result pre fight. Machida and Anderson use their foot work defence to cool of an opponent, get them into fighting their rythmless, feinting style, the opponents start to stand in front of them and go to sleep or 'wait' on them as it’s known in boxing, a cardinal sin in that sport. Tyson made commented that Machida lulls his opponents to sleep then and explodes on them. No UFC the commentators had commented on this so concisely and none of his opponents or their coaches had at this stage seemed to adequately prepare for this either. The similarities between Anderson and Machida stylistically are easily apparent. Andersons last two devastating knockouts and Machida’s Ko of Couture follow exactly this pattern. This technique all though complex in its components is simple in its execution. Why is it that Mike Tyson, a Boxer, is able to read this when no one in MMA seems to be able to see or solve it?

I will come back to this. MMA or any sport or in fact any activity in life has rules, rules based on consequences by law or by nature. Now we are all fully aware that there are people that choose not to obey theses rules and there are other people that are completely unaware that there even are rules and that they may have an easier life if they at least acknowledge this. Life as in MMA is full of people who think they know best or think they are right, unfortunately for those who choose to test this in MMA competition the truth is revealed quickly as first last and second place mean nothing in a fight. The real question is why they are like this. For one, the fight game is an ego sport, it is necessary to win. However ego is an equally powerful ingredient in loosing. The story to justified ignorance is endless, they believe they are right because it has worked thus far; they are too tough for that, their coach/team never told them so it can’t be right, or they are unfortunately just not able to think on that level. Whatever the cause the effect is the same. Ignorance. And in the fight game, that can kill.

So now we come back to our answer. The reason Tyson could read what so many others could not is his education. He is a pedigree boxer, trained by the genius mind of Cus D’Amato, who taught Tyson to watch fights not as violent confrontations but as emotional power plays like Shakespearian dramas, in acts and stanzas. The rules are different but the game is the same. This is why Boxing is so important to MMA, this pedigree education system of coaches, armatures, championships passed down from generation to generation from champion to champion. There is so much more than simply the skill of punches to study in boxing the science is to learn the GAME form boxing. Learning to study the game and the pedigree of your education is paramount. From all great boxers you can trace a pedigree, Manny Paqiaou = Freddy Roach = Eddie Futch, James Toney and Floyd Mayweather Both form old school Michigan boxing stylist with the likes of the Kronk gym and Joe Louis, and Jersey Joe Walcott, Bernard Hopkins trained in the old school Philadelphia gyms with veteran trainers from that great boxing city. Learn from the great scholars of boxing, Cus D’Amato, George Foreman, Teddy Atlas, Emanuel Steward, Freddie Roach and Bernard Hopkins. These boxers can read the game of MMA because although they may not have known what was going to happen they know that something was. Gregg Jackson although he may not know the game or the science of boxing has studied some of the rules and applies them to his stable. He is a studious example of an outstanding coach and may go down as the great pioneer in MMA coaching. Next time you watch a fight watch it as Cus D’Amato taught as a psychodrama a contest of wills and wits. Because just as in University and prestigious schools of science and philosophy the pedigree of your education is the most important.

You can do the wrong things or the right things but they are all just things, moves techniques, strategies, mindsets, practice, knowledge, experience. They can be acquired, taught and also ignored.

Training hard Vs Trying hard

Watching Shane Mosley Box Manny Pacquiao this morning made me consider again the difference between a puncher and a boxer. Both defeated Shane in impressive ways, but distinctly different ways indeed. Pacquiao can punch but Floyd can box. This morning I saw a puncher, who did hurt Shane with a punch, but that was, in fact, all. When watching Mayweather face the same opponent I saw a boxer who had his man dialed in, Floyd adjusted and executed. Finlay leaving Shane destitute, nowhere to hide and no answers. Watching the great Pacquiao jump around looking for the big punch I realised what Manny can do is punch, but what he cant do, compared to Floyd is much much longer.

Boxing history is full examples of punchers waiting, following, trying to land the big punch, while the opponent works and boxes around them. As a boxer there are may ways to ruin your opponent once you realise you can get them to try. The most famous example is Mohammad Ali vs Joe Frazier particularly in thier rematches where he inslted Joe so visciously he still holds mortal annamosity to this day. Ali aggrevated Fazier to the point he was tring to kill him with every punch, despite being a high work rate pressure fighter, the worst match up for a boxer, Ali knew by geting to him this would ruin him as it took his mind of all the other things he coud of been doing instead of trying to hurt him.

The KO punch. There is no better way to win; you have the two judges right here in your left and right hands. But how does this come about? and are in fact the consequences of your desire greater than the pay offs of your intended success?

There is in fact quite enough going in on in a Boxing or MMA match for you not to be 'trying' to punch hard and 'trying' to knock your opponent out. The old saying in boxing is - never bet on a puncher when he's facing a boxer. But why is this? Any good boxing coach will tell you: Box! the KO punch will come all on its own. You can wait for this punch all nite and then find yourself in a position that you depend on it after losing up until that point. Time and time again you will see keen punchers swinging wildly at the head; these are intimidating punches to a beginner, and may even prove lethal to those who posses no defensive prowess. However to a Boxer, a professional, who has a clear mind and know his job is to manage fear, this keenness to punch represents a keenness to get punched. Slugging. Trading punches. Unless you are so confident that your power, chin, strength and stamina are so superior and that the fellow can have no chance of hurting you, this is a great way to lose, for the fans. This style also limits your effectiveness, there will ALWAYS be a time that you meet your physical match, there will ALWAYS be a time where you just can't hurt or finish someone. It is physical gambling to trade punches like this, and the name of the game for winning is: stack the odds in your favor, not play games of chance.

The time to try is in the gym, the hours, weeks and years of honing your skills and reflexes. You build the odds for yourself by being a savvy fighter, by out-thinking, out-adjusting and out-maneuvering your opponent. There are times where this goes out the window and the only way to come on top is to dig down and win. Even so if you are facing opposition who have simply made there way by 'trying' hard, opposition who haven't spent time investing in there defensive skills, adjusted to different styles, used their intelligence and all the millions of different things one has to practice for hours on end to perfect, they will in fact fall behind.

In short, the argument to simply: 'try' hard or 'try' to punch hard is thin. The benefits of trying to land a big punch and trying and training to make the punch powerful are grossly out weighed by the consequences. The opportunities you miss, the energy and speed you lose, the fact your concentration not on the subtle skills and strategies but the big hit, you will find you lose your way and quite likely find yourself in a pit, without many answers.

The Jab Part 1

What is it about the Jab that causes so many great boxers and, only now, MMA fighters to talk incessantly about it? Your understanding of the Jab, indeed, is arguably parallel to where you are at in your progress as either a boxer or a Mixed Martial Artist. So ask your self what is it about the jab that causes so many great boxers focus their attention on it. When I first started hearing again and again from so many commentators such as George Foreman, Lennox Lewis and Sugar Ray Lennoard on HBO it got thinking about the basic elements of the Jab.
Often coaches will tell you "If you cant hit them with your jab, you can forget anything else"

It is closest to the opponent, it is fastest of all punches, it can be used to blind, confuse and trick your opponent and other 'functions' as such. I thought once I had mastered these 'actions' then I would have greater success and I did, however i realise now this is the Primary school level understanding of the jab as a weapon. As you grow to understand and use the jab you find it easier to get into position, put your opponent of what they are doing and out of posture, still there is a next stage of understanding

The point where you realise the jab is a question is when you start to use it properly. The Jab finds out how someone reacts, what the are looking for how fast they move or adjust. You oppositions Jab is a question you must answer, there is an saying old in boxing "If you cant beat a mans jab, you cant beat him" There is a point where you must decide answering the question a jab poses. Are you the student? Answering questions unexpectedly when asked, becoming coming stressed at exam time, fumbling and trying to catch up at the last minute. Or are you trained? Are you learned, studied and are you now the teacher designing the tests and leading the way down paths.

This is now bring you up to a high school grade of Jab pedigree. Stay tuned for Part 2 where I will explain the TRUE place of the Jab and perhaps you can earn your Masters in the Jab.

UFC 128: Shogun Vs Jones

As I wait to see how this weekends UFC 128 light-heavy weight title fight between Mauricio 'Shogun' Rua (23-4) and Jon 'bones' Jones (13-1 Dq). I believe this will be one of the first fight in UFC history where we see if the evolution of MMA has risen to the point where records ans MMA pedigree are factors. Throughout the emergence of MMA the experience and records of fighters has meant very little in the outcome of bouts, the x factor's of the athletes and the unstructured and often miss understood art off MMA continues to trump the bookies and the records.

The facts of the bout are: Mauricio Shogun is a MMA pedigree, a complete fighter. adjustable tough and season, bred the way only Brazilian fighters are at the moment. he has impressive Ko's in his last few fights marquee names as he has throughout his career so far. He has come up the hard way, facing big name opposition with varied styles and skills. If you follow the records you will see he has handled fighters who are better at individual discipline's than Jones. More Impressive Strikers Cyrille Diabate, Alistair Overeem, Lyoto Machida, Rampage Jackson and Chuck Liddel. Better wrestlers than Jones, Mark Coleman,and Kevin Randalman. And far better Jui Jitsu specialists in Ricardo Arona and Antonio Nougeria. But MMA is not about how good you are at ONE thing, it is about how good you are at EVERYTHING, as shoguns only legitimate losses show to Renato Sobral and Forest Griffin, who despite their flaws are well rounded 'solid' competition for anyone.
The followers of Jone's record will note he has not faced any significant specialists apart from wrestlers, his speciality, who he did everything else better than and wrestled them sufficiently to dominate namely Matt Hamill, Vladimir Matushenko and Ryan Bader. The well rounded fighters he has faced were the limited Stephen Bonnar and constant underachiever Brandon Vera. He has had less fights been fed more opponents and never fought for a title.

Based on these factors it is very hard to place a bet on Jon Jones, however MMA traditionally has not been affected by this type of logic, and this bout in particular presents a great deal of x factors to consider. Shogun has been injured with crippling knee operation over the last few years, this is obviously against him, he was man handled for whatever reason by Forest Griffin which undoubtedly the game plan Jones will have his mind set on if the stand up is not easy pickings for him. More favourable to Jon Jones is his athleticism, unorthodox style and extreme reach, enough to cause any fighter problems if left unchecked. He is also undefeated, which means there is no pattern in his mind of how to lose, and no proven blueprint in Shoguns to beat him.

My prediction: In my opinion the fight based upon the above factors is even. There is however one and most important observation I made while watching Jones Vs Bader. I believe I saw Jones nervous and hesitant for the first two or three minutes facing Bader, I believe the fight changed at the exact point Bader took a backwards step and almost imperceivably backed down, Jones sensing this imediatly threw a head kicked and the rest is history. It was at this point I saw what i believe to be scared Jone become brave, a sin that Cus D'amato warned his fighters about, "Never let a scared fighter get brave, because the you will have a problem" shogun wont have this problem. If indeed Jones's skill is greater than Rua's we may not see it come to fruition as Shoguns 'Will' shall overcome it.  If what I saw was in fact the situation then I think this fight will be a case of a boy in there with a man, a true professional.

Who is your Coach?

Who is your coach?
Is the dedication, application or aptitude that is required to be self taught what creates so much potential? There is something special about this quality that is unquestionable. Many of the greatest minds, artists, sports stars and business people are self taught. The brilliance of those self taught shapes modern history, search for Leonardo Davinci, Jimi Hendrix, Abraham Lincon, Benjamin Franklin ,Socrates, Ernest Hemmingway, Thomas Edison, Malcom X and Wilbur Wright just too name a few.

There is an old saying in boxing that goes 'a natural born killer will ALWAYS beat a trained killer' Boxers of yester year indeed trained, taught and innovated for themselves rather than rely on series of coaches and an amateur system. Jack Johnson introduced much of the art to modern boxing, Dempsey created the aggressive style or bobbing and weaving with his infamous 'Dempsey roll' and is believed, with his first million dollar gate with Tex Rickard, to have created the idolisation of the knockout with the public and sparked the dream of fortunes of future pugilists. Archie Moore created the style of cross arm blocking and crafted shoulder rolling, Ali popularised to future generations the dancing jabbing style originally employed  famously by pugilists such as Gene Tunney and Ray Robinson. These were glory days of boxing where famously the 'clever' fighters of the 40's and 50's met Kings, mingled with Presidents, caused waring nations stop and watch, as thousands and thousands of clubs coaches and fighters struggled for the one and only title in one of the traditional 8 divisions.

Now this does not mean re invent the wheel, but rather there is a wealth of resources available to any interested person these days accelerated by the Renaissance age of communication and multimedia that we find ourselves a part of. It is true that boxers of yester year lived in a time where the art of boxing shames the current scene in both public interest, participation and application to the sport, however we do have something that has developed since Jim Jacobs boxing archives that young Mike Tyson studiously watched for hours each evening. We can access thousands of fights and articles INSTANTLY via the Internet, there is a wealth of knowledge waiting to be observed.

Your coach is Cus D'amato, Jack Dempsey, Jack Blackburn, George Foreman, Rocky Marciano, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Marvin Haggler, Larry Holmes, Ezzard Charles, Roger Mayweather Bernard Hopkins. The list is endless, you can hear with commentaries, interviews, instructional,  articles and corner work, hours and hours of advice and wisdom. It is simply up to you to discover who you find inspirational, who you want to emulate who you want to guide you, and applie it to where you are training. Then if any old chap tell you this and that is wrong, you can say ' well George Foreman doesn't think so, you should go take it up with him'