# CHB Most Knowledgeable Poster Comp: Teeto v Bogotazo



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Group A Round 1 @Teeto @Bogotazo*

You Question:

*Who exhibited the best footwork in themodern era of boxing (1965 onwards)?
*
Teeto you go first.

You each have five posts. You can't post two in a row so must wait for the other poster to respond before going to your next point.

You may focus on your own argument or discredit your opponent.

You can make your posts as long as you feel, use of video and/or picture evidence to back up your point is encouraged. Try not to get into babbling though as that'll go against you.

Blatant lying will see you marked down.

After all ten posts (unless someone folds) judging will be opened to the floor and to the judges. 

People who aren't in the comp - can you please refrain from posting on the subject until after both participants have finished. Any posts giving hints etc with be deleted and persistence will see your arse in the gulag.

More info is available at: http://checkhookboxing.com/showthrea...ompetition!!!!

Rules and participants are included in OP.*


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

I'm torn between Jose Napoles and Bernard Hopkins, but I take Bernard.

For me it's important to distinguish between technical proficiency and natural attributes. Whereas punching in combinations with skill is different to flurrying with speed, utilising great footwork is different to moving excessively. In both examples, it is the former which is the measure of technical proficiency and the latter which is the measure of natural attribute.

If I take Roy Jones, a rival of Hopkins', I can begin to observe this difference. Jones was far more naturally gifted than Hopkins. Jones employed a lot of movement at times, as did someone like Cory Spinks, who I would argue even employed excessive mobility. But if we compare both in terms of footwork, which is a technical matter, to Hopkins can stand up to him.

The reason that Hopkins is classed as one of the greatest defensive boxer of our time is not because of any similarities to the type of defensive boxing that Pernell Whitaker or Floyd Mayweather have practiced. A lot of punches would come either man's way and in the case of Whitaker they would be usually be dodged, whereas in the case of Mayweather they would generally be blocked. To watch Hopkins reveals a different procedural pattern however;

Professional fighters aren't stupid. A fighter isn't going to throw the shot unless he believes the shot is there. When we watch Hopkins, many fight fans claim boredom. This is derived from the fact that there is a lack of action. Why is there a lack of action? The answer is because Hopkins' opponents have nothing to throw. So ahead of his opponent are his feet that his opponent is hardly ever in position to land. When he takes a step here or a step there, his opponent becomes totally out of sorts and loses composure and hence, doesn't throw the shot. His mobility is never excessive, but economical. Look at how he completely befuddled Kelly Pavlik with his footwork, Pavlik could never get set, or look to how he schooled Tito Trinidad, knowing that his foe never did master the art of cutting off the ring, or again to Antonio Tarver, where Hopkins' footwork was of the most importance in constructing his victory. A step to the left to offset the southpaw potential advantage, and the right hand would fit right in like a hand in a magic glove.

The fact that his fights are criticised so much for being 'boring', strengthen my claim. Hopkins, at his finest, would simply control the range from mid ring, stepping around his man in the centre square, and simply going about his job. Nothing flashy, just plain and simple technical footwork at the highest level. Making life so hard for an opponent who wanted nothing more than to just be able to get set and do some landing.

For me he only tops Napoles because Napoles didn't move laterally when needed in too many circumstances, his footwork was all about getting in position to let his GOAT combinations fly. Hopkins by contrast, when backed up, was able to fight off the ropes more effectively and then be back in centre ring before his opponent could capitalize. In Hopkin's physical prime, there is evidence of how his footwork was also a great tool on offense. Take his fight with Glencoffe Johnson for example. He ever so slightly closes the physical distance between himself and Glen as the bout goes on and the beating becomes more systematic. His footwork is instrumental. Glen can never get set, and is basically handcuffed


----------



## OnePunchKO (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogo's pretty damn knowledgeable. But Teeto's post above is sickeningly good.


----------



## Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) (May 19, 2013)

go get her boy


----------



## From Russia (Jun 5, 2013)




----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Epic tussle this, lovely opening post Teeto.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

That's interesting.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Teeto said:


> I'm torn between Jose Napoles and Bernard Hopkins, but I take Bernard.
> 
> For me it's important to distinguish between technical proficiency and natural attributes. Whereas punching in combinations with skill is different to flurrying with speed, utilising great footwork is different to moving excessively. In both examples, it is the former which is the measure of technical proficiency and the latter which is the measure of natural attribute.
> 
> ...


That reminded me of Rigondeux Teeto.I would have been seriously worried about a technical question with Bogo(and I have no doubt Bogo will come back Marquez-style)

But that was fuckin beautiful man.Real purist shit!:smile


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> That reminded me of Rigondeux Teeto.I would have been seriously worried about a technical question with Bogo(and I have no doubt Bogo will come back Marquez-style)
> 
> But that was fuckin beautiful man.Real purist shit!:smile


:good

thanks man, I love technical analysis, it's my favourite aspect of boxing

If you're a technical man, I dunno if you read my article (it was done before most of the posters arrived here), if you haven't then give it a blast :good

http://checkhookboxing.com/showthre...ower-A-Historical-Study-of-Punching-Technique


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Teeto said:


> :good
> 
> thanks man, I love technical analysis, it's my favourite aspect of boxing
> 
> ...


I promise I will put my laptop on hibernate right on the article and get back to you tomorrow mate.

I've managed to duck @LittleRed tonight,so I think I should escape whilst I can!

But seriously @Chatty and @LittleRed,it's best we try and agree a time and after 9.30 should be good for me as I'll have my little girl in bed if I have her.During the day I'm only coming on when I get a minute on phone with summer holidays,so sometimes I get half an hour,sometimes I get two minutes.Night time is good for me if I'm going to get a run at it and if it's OK with you guys,and if I can manage during the day I'll let you know by posting in the thread that I'm good to go(to the gallows:-()
I think I used up my shameless duck tonight.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) said:


> go get her boy


:ibutt


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> I promise I will put my laptop on hibernate right on the article and get back to you tomorrow mate.
> 
> I've managed to duck @LittleRed tonight,so I think I should escape whilst I can!
> 
> ...


:good sweet, no rush, just give it a read whenever. :lol: you can't duck forever though my man


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm not even that dangerous but I'm being treated like Terry McGovern with loaded gloves. And yeah im fine with that time frame.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

May it please the Forum:

To begin, I'd like to state that while a dichotomy certainly exists between technical proficiency and natural athletic ability, when it comes to measuring the capabilities of a great fighter, what matters is the outcome. A fighter need not be valued any less for being able to string together incredibly quick but varied combinations than the fighter who executes the same varied pattern with less speed. And this applies to the matter at hand, which is the question of who had had the best footwork in the modern era. Footwork is a technical craft, but it can be complimented with great effect by natural ability. This is not to say that Teeto was suggesting to the contrary, but it is a point I wanted to make to avoid readers viewing this debate as a matter of who can do more with less, as opposed to who can simply do more and do it better.

The best executor of boxing footwork-and really the best ring general- in the modern era is none other than Pernell Whitaker.

Footwork entails many different interrelated facets, and Teeto has already touched upon one (or overlooked, actually) in reference to Pernell Whitaker: Control of Distance.

Teeto is correct in pointing out that Hopkins' footwork is his main tool for success defensively (a relatively unique quality), which of course opens up his offensive opportunities. For much of his career, Hopkins' tactics can be more or less categorized into the following strategies: circling an aggressor/ambush fighter and taking away their punching angle (Pascal, Cloud, Pavlik); ambushing an opponent himself (Tarver, also Pavlik); or simply advancing behind a jab and grinding down a fighter on the inside (Johnson).

The fights listed are simply examples of Hopkins' most notable victories using the same tactics that he had used throughout his career. They are examples of the rule for Hopkins' style, not the exception to it. And when one looks at that collection of fights, one must realize that despite these executions of footwork are nothing short of amazing, it becomes obvious that Hopkins rarely executed the careful control of distance necessary to remain just as defensively sound in-range. He was either all the way in, or all the way out. Fair play to him, but that lack of in-range stutter-step precision is where Pernell Whitaker excelled for his entire career.

One only has to look at the most difficult moments of Hopkins' career to understand the truth of this matter. Despite personally scoring both fights against Jermain Taylor for Hopkins, it was easy to see the frustration on the part of Bernard Hopkins, who was unable to use his footwork to his usual advantage. Jermain Taylor was not a pressure-fighter looking to overwhelm an old man, nor was he the kind of fighter you could barge in on to get inside, back up, and rough up at will. Jermain Taylor made Bernard Hopkins fight right at the end of their punches, and Bernard's entire game suddenly seemed off. A boxer's base is at his feet, and the fact that each man was constantly switching between the role of aggressor and defender (not always on BHop's terms) revealed the lack of Hopkins' ability to fluidly step in, out, and around an opponent who did not ascribe to either extreme. Many times, Hopkins was rushing forward and missing punches, unable to ambush Taylor who was in perfect position to see those shots coming. Other times, Hopkins was easily rushed backwards by Taylor, who was in perfect position to seize an offensive opportunity.

Whitaker, however, was at his creative best staying _just_ in and out of range, reading an opponent's body language, setting his traps, and creating the art upon the canvas that was the ring. Hopkins often makes his opponents miss by miles by keeping miles between them, or smothering them entirely; Whitaker more often played a game of inches, and played it well. Just look at the opening performance against Roger Mayweather. Although Whitaker is praised so highly for his upper body movement, it was his subtle footwork that facilitated his upper body to move with such precision. Sliding backwards while pulling his head slightly, ducking out at a side-angle with a full pivot, and even effortlessly intimidating a stalking opponent into backing up momentarily to maintain control of the center (such as against Roger Mayweather, a well-rounded boxer-puncher) by stepping forward-these are all subtle tricks that allowed Whitaker to maintain complete offensive and defensive control of an opponent in a way that Hopkins rarely demonstrated. The one instance I can think of is his late-round performance against Trinidad, having countered and batter him, being comfortable enough to stay right in front of him and outsmart & outquick him. But Whitaker has shown these traits each time he's stepped into a ring, against McGirt, Nelson, Mayweather, and even in his controversial past-prime performance against Oscar De La Hoya.

(Also, Whitaker's performance against fighters like Hurtado, who was outright running, wasn't far behind the Johnson performance or any other aggressive demonstration of footwork by Hopkins in terms of economy.)

This brings us to our next elements: Lateral Movement and Stepping With/Into Punches.

Hopkins has superb lateral movement, the best in the game today. But Whitaker's was superior. As mentioned before, Hopkins' lateral movement was to take away a punching angle and set up an ambush, but Whitaker's lateral movement was fixed into his offense. It is difficult for a southpaw to consistently land a jab without turning into it, and none has ever done it better than Whitaker. Whitaker's default was to circle while jabbing, constantly circling his opponent and inviting his offense while scoring with his own, elegantly dancing around his opponent without wastefully or skittishly running from him (most of the time, anyway). This can be seen in the same string of Whitaker victories mentioned before. And while Hopkins is a master of befuddling an opponent when cornered and escaping the ropes, Whitaker is not one who was rushed there quite as often. No other fighter since 1965 has been able to circle an opponent so completely while still maintaining their offense. While Whitaker is almost or just as capable of disengaging and ambushing an opponent as Hopkins is, he unquestionably trumps BHop's ability to maintain control in range while side-stepping and pivoting into his punches and recovering position after throwing without ever leaving the center of the ring.

Hopkins' own best quality as an expert mover cannot even surpass Whitaker's ability to execute that same quality.

The very best example of Whitaker's superior lateral movement is coincidentally an example of every other facet of his footwork on its most memorable display, and brings us to our last, and perhaps most important category: The Quality of Opposition against which these various skills collected into one category, "footwork", have been tested. I could keep listing sub-categories of footwork and attempting to isolate the precise abilities of each man, but such examinations fail to directly answer the question of who is "better" or "greater" without contextualizing these skills.

The fight I speak of is the 1993 bout between Pernell Whitaker and Julio Cesar Chavez. Chavez's ability and presence in the ring needs little introduction, and was still largely intact despite being past his absolute physical peak as a fighter. Chavez can easily be called the best pressure-fighter of the modern era. It's not even out of the question for someone to persuasively argue that he had a defensive edge on the inside over Roberto Duran, one of the very best to ever don a pair of gloves. Despite being fresh off a career-long undefeated streak, having eliminated several champions and ranked contenders months prior, the Mexican GOAT could not do a thing to Pernell Whitaker, and there was one principal reason: his footwork.

Even if you were to skip towards this very section of my argument, it would be hard to deny the reality that every aspect of Whitaker's performance against Chavez with respect to footwork was on a higher level than Bernard Hopkins ever did or had the opportunity to show. That fight was a classic textbook display of offensive VS defensive ring generalship, and personally, the best I've ever seen. Whitaker's balance, punching form (with respect to his pivots), lateral steps, constantly-just-out-of-reach positioning, control of the center, in-and-out ambushing, and overall ring generalship shone brilliantly, and it shone brilliantly against a fighter whose ability is many times that of any single one of Hopkins' opponents.

We can sit here and ooh and ahh at the way Hopkins spins Cloud like a matador would a bull, or the way he out-runs Pavlik and neutralizes his jab while bolo-punching, or comprehensively outclasses Trinidad like never before, and that's all well and good. But it simply doesn't measure up to so thoroughly out-boxing Julio Cesar Chavez in a frantically-paced contest for pound-for-pound supremacy. Some might say skills are skills and resume is resume, but skills mean nothing without historically acclaimed fighters with great stylistic prowess to test them against. And Whitaker has the clearly superior demonstration of footwork against the clearly superior opponent, in addition to a career-long demonstration of complete mastery of the craft.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

In short, Whitaker is God.


Amazing post.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

damn, this is a little intimidating.


----------



## Icemmann (May 16, 2013)

There is only one correct answer. Sugar Nikolai Valuev.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> May it please the Forum:
> 
> To begin, I'd like to state that while a dichotomy certainly exists between technical proficiency and natural athletic ability, when it comes to measuring the capabilities of a great fighter, what matters is the outcome. A fighter need not be valued any less for being able to string together incredibly quick but varied combinations than the fighter who executes the same varied pattern with less speed. And this applies to the matter at hand, which is the question of who had had the best footwork in the modern era. Footwork is a technical craft, but it can be complimented with great effect by natural ability. This is not to say that Teeto was suggesting to the contrary, but it is a point I wanted to make to avoid readers viewing this debate as a matter of who can do more with less, as opposed to who can simply do more and do it better.
> 
> ...


What did I tell y'all?



This is a real early clash of titans.


----------



## Beenie (Jun 3, 2013)

Great reads, guys. 

I simultaneously felt smarter and dumber while reading.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Teeto's been taken out of Lounging doldrums thanks to this competition. Sword is still sharp as fuck.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

ah shit I've only just seen that there is a reply from Bogo, it's 4am, I'll check it out in tomorrow guys


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> May it please the Forum:
> 
> To begin, I'd like to state that while a dichotomy certainly exists between technical proficiency and natural athletic ability, when it comes to measuring the capabilities of a great fighter, what matters is the outcome. A fighter need not be valued any less for being able to string together incredibly quick but varied combinations than the fighter who executes the same varied pattern with less speed. And this applies to the matter at hand, which is the question of who had had the best footwork in the modern era. Footwork is a technical craft, but it can be complimented with great effect by natural ability. This is not to say that Teeto was suggesting to the contrary, but it is a point I wanted to make to avoid readers viewing this debate as a matter of who can do more with less, as opposed to who can simply do more and do it better.


This is incorrect.

The notion that it is ultimately the effectiveness of something that measures the rating of something can only be applied to a results based measure. For example, if we are to judge if a boxer is good at what he does, we will do this by looking at whether he can win or lose. Whether he is good or bad at boxing technically, or whether he has fine natural attributes, or whether he is deemed to be great aesthetically in the eye of the beholder, is irrelevant. What matters is whether he is effective. Roy Jones jr was not a great technician, but he was effective so it didn't matter. Sven Ottke was a not pleasing to most aesthetically or blessed with fine attributes, but he was effective so it didn't matter. Sven and Roy both won fights, and that is a positive testament to their effectiveness.

Footwork is not a results business. There is no sport called footwork. Footwork is a technical element of boxing, as is ring generalship. Handspeed is natural element of boxing, as is punching power. There is no conclusive way to gauge footwork on an effectiveness basis, because footwork is a matter of technique.

Where your rationale breaks down is here at the very formation of your argument. Allow me to illustrate.

Your stance is that Muhammad Ali had great footwork, because what he did with his feet was effective. This cannot be true, because Muhammad Ali's footwork was flawed. Footwork is a matter of technique, something which is practiced and honed. It is a skill, not a natural attribute. The only way to judge it is to analyze the footage and asses the skill set. Ali moved back in straight lines, his footwork was flawed. The reason this was not a major problem for him was because of his great mobility and his speed of foot. This indicates he was a great athlete. His footwork in itself was flawed, but his athleticism was brilliant.

It cannot be claimed in truth that Ali's footwork was purely amazing simply because what he did with his feet was effective. That would be like saying Oscar De La Hoya was a great combination puncher because he threw punches in bunches and was effectiveness. Oscar was great at flurrying, but look at the difference between himself and a Ruben Olivares and you quickly see you are dealing with a great flurry man vs a great combination punching man, and that is a matter of technique. When they teach you in the gym to throw combinations, those combinations are made up of technically identifiable punches; hook, uppercut, cross. When they teach you footwork, they teach you your stance, your pivot, keeping your foot on the outside to be in control. They do not teach you to move backwards. Ali's footwork was flawed, because of technique, regardless of him being effective with his feet.

This is why your next claim is false.



Bogotazo said:


> The best executor of boxing footwork-and really the best ring general- in the modern era is none other than Pernell Whitaker.


Negative. Watch Pernell Whitaker, and report back to me on how many times he crosses his feet. Watch him against Nelson. This is the biggest misconception about Pernell Whitaker. His footwork was fundamentally flawed. Where a technical matter is concerned, I can't consider a man who fights like Neo out of the matrix over a man who has no natural gifts and is an elite fighter.

Hopkins only has technique. Without technique Hopkins is a binman. Without technique Whitaker is at least Morphius. Footwork is only technical, anything else is mobility or athleticism, speed or agility. Not footwork.

The amount of foot crossing excludes Whitaker from a debate wherein footwork is concerned, because footwork is technical only.



Bogotazo said:


> Footwork entails many different interrelated facets, and Teeto has already touched upon one (or overlooked, actually) in reference to Pernell Whitaker: Control of Distance.


I believe it is you that has overlooked an a facet of Whitaker's game wherein his control of distance is concerned. That would be his jab. The greatest instrument that Whitaker ever used to control distance was his jab. Pernell Whitaker has the greatest and most varied jab in 135 pound history. Watch the footage, his flawed footwork plays a role, but because it is flawed and Hopkins' is not, it cannot be used as an argument over that of Bernard's footwork.

There is no doubt as to who is the better fighter, that would be Pernell, but footwork is not concerned with effectiveness overall, it is an isolated area to be examined on the basis of technical proficiency as per available footage. We can see the holes in Whitaker's footwork game and therefore he is excluded.

On your claim that I overlooked footwork as a tool of controlling distance, this is also untrue. I mentioned in detail how Hopkins uses footwork to never let his man get set, never be in position to punch, controlling the centre of the ring. This is ring generalship, this is dictating the pace of the fight, this is the epitome of controlling distance.

This is ring generalship, and this is all that the great Bernard Hopkins had, he had no great natural attributes, no matrix like reflexes. What made him great was his footwork, his technique, his control of distance, and his ring generalship.

I also mentioned his ability to close the gap on his man, as illustrated by Glencoffe Johnson. Another example I gave of him controlling distance. I actually explained his footwork as a tool of controlling distance at length, so I find it strange that you would say I overlooked such an element.

On the claim of Hopkins and control of distance, here is one of his ultimate showings from a technical perspective






Control of distance is key against a master jabber who only wants to establish that jab. Here we see the perfect kryptonite, lateral movement and control of distance so as to never allow the opponent's jab to be established.



Bogotazo said:


> Teeto is correct in pointing out that Hopkins' footwork is his main tool for success defensively (a relatively unique quality), which of course opens up his offensive opportunities. For much of his career, Hopkins' tactics can be more or less categorized into the following strategies: circling an aggressor/ambush fighter and taking away their punching angle (Pascal, Cloud, Pavlik); ambushing an opponent himself (Tarver, also Pavlik); or simply advancing behind a jab and grinding down a fighter on the inside (Johnson).


Thank you for highlighting how versatile the technically perfect footwork of Bernard Hopkins is. You are totally correct, his fine footwork can be used in any scenario. This is why he is the most complete fighter of his era from a technical standpoint.



Bogotazo said:


> The fights listed are simply examples of Hopkins' most notable victories using the same tactics that he had used throughout his career. They are examples of the rule for Hopkins' style, not the exception to it. And when one looks at that collection of fights, one must realize that despite these executions of footwork are nothing short of amazing, it becomes obvious that Hopkins rarely executed the careful control of distance necessary to remain just as defensively sound in-range. He was either all the way in, or all the way out. Fair play to him, but that lack of in-range stutter-step precision is where Pernell Whitaker excelled for his entire career.


This doesn't make sense. There can be no example of a singular rule of his style when the examples you give are all different in style. You're giving examples that prove his versatility and then saying 'look this proves he wasn't versatile'.

There are no technical flaws in the makeup of Bernard Hopkins, only physical flaws. His problem was speed, Taylor, Jones, even as far up as Dawson, all faster fighters, none more technically rounded or proficient. The footwork of Bernard Hopkins is so versatile it equips him to deal with any scenario stylistically. The only spanner in the works is thrown in by a faster man. If all physical attributes are equal and constant, Hopkins wins.

Bernard Hopkins was great at controlling distance, this was what he did best. Even if you take the Calzaghe fight, the reason said fight was so 'boring' was because Hopkins totally controlled the pace and dictated the distance for more than the first half of the fight. Calzaghe could never get set. This is alien to Calzaghe who himself had fine circular footwork and was a windmill of a fighter. Hopkins' footwork was too superior.



Bogotazo said:


> One only has to look at the most difficult moments of Hopkins' career to understand the truth of this matter. Despite personally scoring both fights against Jermain Taylor for Hopkins, it was easy to see the frustration on the part of Bernard Hopkins, who was unable to use his footwork to his usual advantage. Jermain Taylor was not a pressure-fighter looking to overwhelm an old man, nor was he the kind of fighter you could barge in on to get inside, back up, and rough up at will. Jermain Taylor made Bernard Hopkins fight right at the end of their punches, and Bernard's entire game suddenly seemed off. A boxer's base is at his feet, and the fact that each man was constantly switching between the role of aggressor and defender (not always on BHop's terms) revealed the lack of Hopkins' ability to fluidly step in, out, and around an opponent who did not ascribe to either extreme. Many times, Hopkins was rushing forward and missing punches, unable to ambush Taylor who was in perfect position to see those shots coming. Other times, Hopkins was easily rushed backwards by Taylor, who was in perfect position to seize an offensive opportunity.


Negative. Jermaine Taylor, as I have already mentioned, was able to beat Hopkins to the punch, he beat him due to the same reason that all his other masters beat him. Jermaine Taylor was too fast for Hopkins. His jab was at the time considered potentially ATG, and that jab kept beating Bernard to the punch, especially in the first fight, which I scored to Taylor.

Hopkins was not beaten in any sense at the footwork game by Taylor. Taylor doesn't sport great footwork and is basically a statue with a great jab and right cross. It doesn't make sense to put it down to footwork. Hopkins was simply beaten to the punch by a faster man, backed up, and unloaded on. Nothing indicated poor footwork. In the rematch Hopkins implemented his footwork better and won the fight on my card as he did on yours, so by your own standard of footwork being a measure gauged by effectiveness, this is surely a plus in your Hopkins footwork book.



Bogotazo said:


> Whitaker, however, was at his creative best staying _just_ in and out of range, reading an opponent's body language, setting his traps, and creating the art upon the canvas that was the ring. Hopkins often makes his opponents miss by miles by keeping miles between them, or smothering them entirely; Whitaker more often played a game of inches, and played it well. Just look at the opening performance against Roger Mayweather. Although Whitaker is praised so highly for his upper body movement, it was his subtle footwork that facilitated his upper body to move with such precision. Sliding backwards while pulling his head slightly, ducking out at a side-angle with a full pivot, and even effortlessly intimidating a stalking opponent into backing up momentarily to maintain control of the center (such as against Roger Mayweather, a well-rounded boxer-puncher) by stepping forward-these are all subtle tricks that allowed Whitaker to maintain complete offensive and defensive control of an opponent in a way that Hopkins rarely demonstrated. The one instance I can think of is his late-round performance against Trinidad, having countered and batter him, being comfortable enough to stay right in front of him and outsmart & outquick him. But Whitaker has shown these traits each time he's stepped into a ring, against McGirt, Nelson, Mayweather, and even in his controversial past-prime performance against Oscar De La Hoya.


Watch Pernell and tell me his footwork is the instrument that enabled him to slip in and out of range. It is not the case. Whitaker used angles to achieve that feat. He did it against Trinidad when his footwork was gone. Head movement, shoulder roll, and above all, his great jab. Don't get me wrong, what he was doing with his feet was brilliant, but as I say, so was what Ali was doing with his, and it doesn't make his technical flaws disappear. This is a discussion of footwork, and it is only technical.

You speak of Hopkins keeping a lot of distance between him and his opponent. What was Whitaker doing against Nelson? The difference is Hopkins' performance was done with minimal foot steps as opposed to Whitaker's continuous crossing over of the feet. If we observe both performances and look simply at footwork, it is clear that Hopkins is more economical. He does more with less.

Hopkins' feet are out of position nowhere near as much as Pernell's are. Pernell's feet are backing up into each other at times. He gets away with it because of his amazing upper body skills. Those upper body skills are the greatest I've seen on film outside of Duran by the way.



Bogotazo said:


> (Also, Whitaker's performance against fighters like Hurtado, who was outright running, wasn't far behind the Johnson performance or any other aggressive demonstration of footwork by Hopkins in terms of economy.)


Not far behind but too far away. Hopkins' footwork was systematic in his demolition of Johnson. Whitaker was not economic in his footwork. You talk of all in or all out on the part of Bernard, but that describes Whitaker at times. His exclusively back foot performances such as that against Nelson were simply that, exclusively back foot.



Bogotazo said:


> This brings us to our next elements: Lateral Movement and Stepping With/Into Punches.
> 
> Hopkins has superb lateral movement, the best in the game today. But Whitaker's was superior. As mentioned before, Hopkins' lateral movement was to take away a punching angle and set up an ambush, but Whitaker's lateral movement was fixed into his offense. It is difficult for a southpaw to consistently land a jab without turning into it, and none has ever done it better than Whitaker. Whitaker's default was to circle while jabbing, constantly circling his opponent and inviting his offense while scoring with his own, elegantly dancing around his opponent without wastefully or skittishly running from him (most of the time, anyway). This can be seen in the same string of Whitaker victories mentioned before. And while Hopkins is a master of befuddling an opponent when cornered and escaping the ropes, Whitaker is not one who was rushed there quite as often. No other fighter since 1965 has been able to circle an opponent so completely while still maintaining their offense. While Whitaker is almost or just as capable of disengaging and ambushing an opponent as Hopkins is, he unquestionably trumps BHop's ability to maintain control in range while side-stepping and pivoting into his punches and recovering position after throwing without ever leaving the center of the ring.


To be perfectly honest I think Yoko Gushiken possibly moved circular in conjunction with pumping out the southpaw jab than Whitaker did. I don;t see Whitaker as a lateral man to be honest, I think it's a myth that he was of a Willie Pep mould, i.e a pure boxer. It's not the case, when Whitaker had a man in centre ring, his game was not to move laterally around his man, his game was to claim centre ring on a foundation of strength and establishing the jab. Whitaker was a far more rounded fighter than given credit for. He was not really a back foot man at all. Let's look at what happens when Pernell has a centre ring man who is looking to engage him in the art of ring generalship.






This is typical Whitaker, him at his best. Lateral movement is not his game at all. His game is to establish that great jab, claim the middle of the ring, and use the footwork to counter and set traps when his man advances, never being there. And when the man does rush him, his footwork sometimes consists of things like crossing the feet.

Let's contrast that with Bernard.






Bernard's game is lateral movement, not establishing the jab and beating up on a man with insane skills as Whitaker did. Hopkins is defined by footwork. A static opponent is moved around, and that's all that happens. Hopkins is in perpetual motion but not using anywhere near as many foot steps as Pernell, who is more excessive in his economy. When it comes to a technical analysis, Whitaker comes up short.

I don't know of a fighter with better economy when it comes to lateral movement. The fact that against someone like Azumah Nelson, Whitaker is expending almost all of his time with moving around stepping everywhere and crossing his feet, as opposed to Hopkins who is befuddling Trinidad with economical footwork, puts them apart.



Bogotazo said:


> Hopkins' own best quality as an expert mover cannot even surpass Whitaker's ability to execute that same quality.
> 
> The very best example of Whitaker's superior lateral movement is coincidentally an example of every other facet of his footwork on its most memorable display, and brings us to our last, and perhaps most important category: The Quality of Opposition against which these various skills collected into one category, "footwork", have been tested. I could keep listing sub-categories of footwork and attempting to isolate the precise abilities of each man, but such examinations fail to directly answer the question of who is "better" or "greater" without contextualizing these skills.
> 
> The fight I speak of is the 1993 bout between Pernell Whitaker and Julio Cesar Chavez. Chavez's ability and presence in the ring needs little introduction, and was still largely intact despite being past his absolute physical peak as a fighter. Chavez can easily be called the best pressure-fighter of the modern era. It's not even out of the question for someone to persuasively argue that he had a defensive edge on the inside over Roberto Duran, one of the very best to ever don a pair of gloves. Despite being fresh off a career-long undefeated streak, having eliminated several champions and ranked contenders months prior, the Mexican GOAT could not do a thing to Pernell Whitaker, and there was one principal reason: his footwork.


The reason was not footwork. I've studied the fight for years. Pernell Whitaker gave Julio Cesar Chavez a schooling on the inside. He punched the hell out of him, similar to what Meldrick Taylor did. This point is irrelevant.

If you want to see the flaws I talk of in Whitaker's footwork, you only need to look at the fight you speak of. Skip to 10:55 and watch until the end of the round






how many times do his feet cross over?

I don't know how anyone could say this fight was won (and Whitaker did win it) on footwork. This fight was won on the jab and on skills, upper body skills, punching capability. Chavez was never as good as Whitaker for combinations of punches. Whitaker spent long periods of this fight on the inside, leaning on his man, hitting him with body shots. Wanting to prove a point that he was better than the lauded superstar at what it was that he was famous for, and he was. He proved that point.

Your point however, that this is a win enabled first and foremost by footwork, does not hold up.



Bogotazo said:


> Even if you were to skip towards this very section of my argument, it would be hard to deny the reality that every aspect of Whitaker's performance against Chavez with respect to footwork was on a higher level than Bernard Hopkins ever did or had the opportunity to show. That fight was a classic textbook display of offensive VS defensive ring generalship, and personally, the best I've ever seen. Whitaker's balance, punching form (with respect to his pivots), lateral steps, constantly-just-out-of-reach positioning, control of the center, in-and-out ambushing, and overall ring generalship shone brilliantly, and it shone brilliantly against a fighter whose ability is many times that of any single one of Hopkins' opponents.


It isn't though. Just because you say it's so doesn;t make it the case. I've just highlighted why what you say is untrue.

I think you're confusing usage of angles with footwork.



Bogotazo said:


> We can sit here and ooh and ahh at the way Hopkins spins Cloud like a matador would a bull, or the way he out-runs Pavlik and neutralizes his jab while bolo-punching, or comprehensively outclasses Trinidad like never before, and that's all well and good. But it simply doesn't measure up to so thoroughly out-boxing Julio Cesar Chavez in a frantically-paced contest for pound-for-pound supremacy. Some might say skills are skills and resume is resume, but skills mean nothing without historically acclaimed fighters with great stylistic prowess to test them against. And Whitaker has the clearly superior demonstration of footwork against the clearly superior opponent, in addition to a career-long demonstration of complete mastery of the craft.


It's not about ooh'ing and ahh'ing at any particular moves. It's about acknowledging the fact that Pernell Whitaker's footwork was fundamentally flawed and it didn't matter because effectively he was on another level wherein all other skills where concerned. Bernard Hopkins by contrast was nothing without his footwork and made it to be the the longest reigning middleweight titlist of all time simply due to the fact that his fundamentals were perfect. Hopkins was never blessed with the kind of reflexes Pernell was afforded by mother nature.

If any kids want to learn how to box, I would not tell them to watch and try to emulate Pernell Whitaker, because it is impossible to emulate such a man. A man who can walk around the ring crossing his feet over and not get caught out because his jab and reflexes were inhuman. Any father of a young boxer who understands that fundamentals are the foundation of learning a craft would send their child to watch Bernard Hopkins, because he is boxing 101.

Footwork is a matter of technique, nothing more and nothing less. Bernard is footwork.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

My God, you guys could write a book lol


----------



## Rexrapper 1 (Jun 4, 2013)

Wow this is great stuff.


----------



## KWilson71 (Jun 8, 2013)

Wow. Just wow.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

I keep going back and forth


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

FOTY so far


----------



## From Russia (Jun 5, 2013)

Beenie said:


> Great reads, guys.
> 
> *I simultaneously felt smarter and dumber while reading.*


haha, nice post.


----------



## megavolt (Jun 5, 2013)

Holy wall of text... I'll read when I wake up lol


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Sitting in on negotiations today, will respond either later tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Vic said:


> My God, you guys could write a book lol


I need to get out of the lounge and get back to my roots on the history forum man. Like the ESB classic days. I must have wrote a few books worth on there :lol:

are you competing in this tournament Vic?


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Oof.

Read all of this with a huge smile. If anything was going to motivate me to start writing with feeling again, then this was it.

Great stuff guys.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Great stuff so far guys, this battle is epic as fuck.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Teeto said:


> I need to get out of the lounge and get back to my roots on the history forum man. Like the ESB classic days. I must have wrote a few books worth on there :lol:
> 
> are you competing in this tournament Vic?


Yes, I will face MichiganWarrior..


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

My excellent post now deleted, seeing as disagreeing with the great Tea-toe gets his panties all in a bunch.What WAS I thinking?


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

^^^ You're not supposed to give any input on the argument until it's over @Cableaddict



> People who aren't in the comp - can you please refrain from posting on the subject until after both participants have finished. Any posts giving hints etc with be deleted and persistence will see your arse in the gulag.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> ^^^ You're not supposed to give any input on the argument until it's over @Cableaddict


Uh-oh, save that post for later and edit it.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> ^^^ You're not supposed to give any input on the argument until it's over @Cableaddict


Would you want to copy that?


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

I thought it WAS over.


How does one tell?


----------



## TBooze (Dec 9, 2012)

Cableaddict said:


> I thought it WAS over.
> 
> How does one tell?


When both have posted five times...


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

edit


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

this is fucking stupid now


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

@Teeto If you and @Cableaddict both edit your posts then maybe, in theory, it won't matter.

Or a mod could delete them? @Bryn @Pabby


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

I don't think it's a big deal, crisis averted, we will move on.

Response is pending.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> @Teeto If you and @Cableaddict both edit your posts then maybe, in theory, it won't matter.
> 
> Or a mod could delete them? @Bryn @Pabby


Mine's edited, his needs to be deleted now.

That post is shit anyway, I wanted to rip it apart but this is supposed to be between me and Bogo


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> Mine's edited, his needs to be deleted now.
> 
> That post is shit anyway, I wanted to rip it apart but this is supposed to be between me and Bogo


:lol:


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I don't think it's a big deal, crisis averted, we will move on.
> 
> Response is pending.


it should be removed until we have posted 5 times each, nobody else is dealing without outside opinions and influence
@Bryn remove it bro


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

I like how he read my post and responded to it, but didn't edit his post


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

I'm gunna reply to it, fuck him


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Teeto said:


> it should be removed until we have posted 5 times each, nobody else is dealing without outside opinions and influence
> 
> @Bryn remove it bro


Oh woops, thought it was removed. I won't be responding until later anyway, that should be removed ASAP, it's against the rules. No worries though.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

I'll delete my post, but next time perhaps the thread starter should POST THE RULES at the start of the thread.

Ya' think?


And Tea-toe, my post is far from shit, I just happen to disagree with you, and I stated an extremely accurate analysis of why. 

So go blow yourself. :bbb :wales :SOK






(gotta' love these icons!)


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Cableaddict said:


> I'll delete my post, but next time perhaps the thread starter should POST THE RULES at the start of the thread.
> 
> Ya' think?


He did.....

No harm done though. :thumbsup


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

edit, I did a reply but to his post but he has deleted it so i took it away


----------



## Cuarenta (Jun 1, 2013)

Did teeto just convince me that Whittaker had shitty footwork? ??


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

I'm late to this, gonna read now.

This is an early heavyweight clash though, Bogotazo and Teets >>>>


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Cableaddict said:


> I'll delete my post, but next time perhaps the thread starter should POST THE RULES at the start of the thread.
> 
> Ya' think?
> 
> ...


sorry I called it shit, I was a little bit pissed off to come into my debate and see there was a third person weighing in. I know you didn't mean it maliciously though so as I say, sorry if I offended you there.

I made a thorough response to your post and posted it but then when I saw you deleted it I cut it out, but I have it saved, so I will post it up after this debate has concluded :good


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Good debate guys ! I'll wait until the end to post my opinion... :bbb


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

What posts do you want me to delete? Give me some post numbers lads.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

This seems to have ironed itself out now so lets forget it happened until afterwards and get on with the debate. Then we can all argue like fuck:lol:


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Things getting sexy in an early war. Very sexy...


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Sorry for the delay, been busy, will respond this weekend.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Bryn said:


> What posts do you want me to delete? Give me some post numbers lads.


It's ok, he deleted it :good


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Guys I go on holiday on Monday and I'll hardly be online tomorrow due to me having to get everything ready etc

Even if Bogo replies tomorrow I dunno if I'll have enough chance to get a big ass reply in and we certainly won't be able to finish up a 10 post debate. Might as well just send Bogo through to the next round on a bye


----------



## Jay (May 31, 2012)

NO MAS!!!!


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

:lol: fuck off, I can wait til after my holiday like but I thought it would drag the competition back


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogo has taken Teeto's heart!


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

:lol: fuck off lads


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Teeto said:


> Guys I go on holiday on Monday and I'll hardly be online tomorrow due to me having to get everything ready etc
> 
> Even if Bogo replies tomorrow I dunno if I'll have enough chance to get a big ass reply in and we certainly won't be able to finish up a 10 post debate. Might as well just send Bogo through to the next round on a bye


You quit ?


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Damn, both Teeto and Bogotazo should at least be in the second round haha.


----------



## artful (May 10, 2013)

Bogo DQ'ed took too long to respond.. he had 2 days since his last post.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

@Teeto I have no problem waiting. I'll be responding tomorrow for sure, I think we should wait, unless we're the very last pair left...


----------



## MrBiggerthan (Jun 4, 2013)

No mas


----------



## Twelvey (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> Guys I go on holiday on Monday and I'll hardly be online tomorrow due to me having to get everything ready etc
> 
> Even if Bogo replies tomorrow I dunno if I'll have enough chance to get a big ass reply in and we certainly won't be able to finish up a 10 post debate. Might as well just send Bogo through to the next round on a bye


I'll be disappointed if you don't slay a few fat lasses and convert a local barman to socialism. Have a good holiday mate :good


----------



## Masters (May 20, 2013)

Bogo is a hypejob who knows shit about box. Anybody who takes a week to respond is googe'ing like there's is no tomorrow. Ill shatter his glass gaw if he even makes it out of round one . Posting giffs and typing what happened in a fight dont impress me one bit. I got my own eyes. Teeto im calling you out now. I'll blow youe hopinks argement out in round one.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Vic said:


> You quit ?


Nah bro, I was just doing the courteous thing. But @Bogotazo is ok with waiting on me to come back from holiday so I'll just reply when I get back in 8 days from now.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

12downfor10 said:


> I'll be disappointed if you don't slay a few fat lasses and convert a local barman to socialism. Have a good holiday mate :good


Thanks lad, I love you.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Masters said:


> Bogo is a hypejob who knows shit about box. Anybody who takes a week to respond is googe'ing like there's is no tomorrow. Ill shatter his glass gaw if he even makes it out of round one . Posting giffs and typing what happened in a fight dont impress me one bit. I got my own eyes. Teeto im calling you out now. I'll blow youe hopinks argement out in round one.


yeah to be honest I was expecting the debate to be well finished by now. I made my first post as soon as the thread went up and then replied to Bogo's response right after he made it. He has taken a long time to respond. No beef though, it is what it is.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Kneeto


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Kneeto


No, I'm waiting around for my opponent to come out of his corner for the next round and nothing is happening, yet the referee is just allowing it and not telling him to get a move on. I've already been subjected to outside interference from a friend of the opponent. This shit is like WWF.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Very controversial ending/result.


----------



## Thawk888 (Jun 8, 2013)

A double KO?


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

I thought I read somewhere that they all had to be done in a 24 hour period? I've got love for Bogo, but he's had all weekend to come up with a reply.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Chavez/Taylor III


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

This is like one of those old bare knuckle fights and Bogo is waiting for police intervention.


----------



## Mrboogie23 (Jun 4, 2013)

Good debate! Bogo needs to hurry.


----------



## Masters (May 20, 2013)

Teeto said:


> yeah to be honest I was expecting the debate to be well finished by now. I made my first post as soon as the thread went up and then replied to Bogo's response right after he made it. He has taken a long time to respond. No beef though, it is what it is.


Take no notice of that. I was out of my mind at the time.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Masters said:


> Take no notice of that. I was out of my mind at the time.


:lol: you legend

(you must have been out yo mind to be calling me out like that)


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

If @Teeto doesn't win this then the people will march on Castle Greyskull. :ibutt :war


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> If @Teeto doesn't win this then the people will march on Castle Greyskull. :ibutt :war


@robskeletor135


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> @robskeletor135


He's more Mer-Man than anything.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> He's more Mer-Man than anything.


:rofl


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

I think the victor of this debate comes down to how you view the question.

Do you see footwork from just a technical point of view and rate it like a trainer would? or Do you see footwork from an analyst point of view and rate it based off of how effective is was overall


----------



## Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) (May 19, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I think the victor of this debate comes down to how you view the question.
> 
> Do you see footwork from just a technical point of view and rate it like a trainer would? or Do you see footwork from an analyst point of view and rate it based off of how effective is was overall


bballchump11 the diplomat


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Quit your bitching people, some of us have a life outside of this place. Teeto I apologize for the delay, if you would like to minimize the post-count to 3 posts since we both write a fair amount, I'm cool with that, fine with sticking with 5 as well. Either way I'm willing to wait until you come back. Up to you.



Teeto said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> The notion that it is ultimately the effectiveness of something that measures the rating of something can only be applied to a results based measure. For example, if we are to judge if a boxer is good at what he does, we will do this by looking at whether he can win or lose. Whether he is good or bad at boxing technically, or whether he has fine natural attributes, or whether he is deemed to be great aesthetically in the eye of the beholder, is irrelevant. What matters is whether he is effective.


The idea that the measured worth of the execution of a skill should be measured in its closeness to conventional usage flies in the face of boxing's status as an art. It is a craft, but the execution of the craft is highly individual, and sometimes quite unorthodox. If you are here to argue who had the most conventional or textbook footwork of the modern era, I'm afraid you're posted in the wrong thread. Who is "better" has a lot to do with who did, well, better.



Teeto said:


> Roy Jones jr was not a great technician, but he was effective so it didn't matter. Sven Ottke was a not pleasing to most aesthetically or blessed with fine attributes, but he was effective so it didn't matter. Sven and Roy both won fights, and that is a positive testament to their effectiveness.


Roy Jones Jr. is a perfect example of why effectiveness should be an essential part of measuring the execution of a skill. Many have suggested that Roy Jones was unskilled, unschooled, unintelligent, and simply relied on his athleticism. I couldn't disagree more. Simply because of the fact Roy Jones did not have a conventional guard, he is dismissed as not being a technician. Again, I must emphasize the distinction between being technical, and being conventional.

If one is purposefully and successfully deviant from the norm, it is not a technical deficiency, but an innovation. It is a tactical stylistic choice designed to bait and lure or confuse an opponent at an opportune moment. Roy Jones, despite having his hands low, kept a superb control of distance, knew to slip towards the outside of both hands and what counters best to use from such a position, feinted brilliantly, had great punching form, and could punch while pivoting to a new angle. You have to know the rules to be able to break them, and Roy's mastery of a number of overlooked fundamentals allowed him to break one and work wonders with it.



Teeto said:


> Footwork is not a results business. There is no sport called footwork. Footwork is a technical element of boxing, as is ring generalship. Handspeed is natural element of boxing, as is punching power. There is no conclusive way to gauge footwork on an effectiveness basis, because footwork is a matter of technique.


As I said, purposeful deviations from convention can still have a technical purpose.



Teeto said:


> Where your rationale breaks down is here at the very formation of your argument. Allow me to illustrate.
> 
> Your stance is that Muhammad Ali had great footwork, because what he did with his feet was effective. This cannot be true, because Muhammad Ali's footwork was flawed. Footwork is a matter of technique, something which is practiced and honed. It is a skill, not a natural attribute. The only way to judge it is to analyze the footage and asses the skill set. Ali moved back in straight lines, his footwork was flawed. The reason this was not a major problem for him was because of his great mobility and his speed of foot. This indicates he was a great athlete. His footwork in itself was flawed, but his athleticism was brilliant.
> 
> It cannot be claimed in truth that Ali's footwork was purely amazing simply because what he did with his feet was effective. That would be like saying Oscar De La Hoya was a great combination puncher because he threw punches in bunches and was effectiveness. Oscar was great at flurrying, but look at the difference between himself and a Ruben Olivares and you quickly see you are dealing with a great flurry man vs a great combination punching man, and that is a matter of technique. When they teach you in the gym to throw combinations, those combinations are made up of technically identifiable punches; hook, uppercut, cross. When they teach you footwork, they teach you your stance, your pivot, keeping your foot on the outside to be in control. They do not teach you to move backwards. Ali's footwork was flawed, because of technique, regardless of him being effective with his feet.


Ali's footwork was not at all conventional, but it's effectiveness was not without technical reasoning. Ali pranced around the ring at an almost complete side angle, crossing his feet constantly as he changed directions. His jab was always able to pump out in volume, and Ali's profile made it very difficult for opponents to predict his direction. For the context it was used in, Ali had effective footwork. Good footwork, at least. I don't think you could call it "bad" footwork simply for the fact that most fighters would fail using the same methods.

I suppose the bigger the deviation, the bigger the opportunity for critique. But here, we're discussing a man who largely mastered the fundamentals of footwork, used them to great effect in the ring and occasionally disegarded them.



Teeto said:


> This is why your next claim is false.
> 
> Negative. Watch Pernell Whitaker, and report back to me on how many times he crosses his feet. Watch him against Nelson. This is the biggest misconception about Pernell Whitaker. His footwork was fundamentally flawed. Where a technical matter is concerned, I can't consider a man who fights like Neo out of the matrix over a man who has no natural gifts and is an elite fighter.
> 
> Hopkins only has technique. Without technique Hopkins is a binman. Without technique Whitaker is at least Morphius. Footwork is only technical, anything else is mobility or athleticism, speed or agility. Not footwork.


Whitaker often crossed his feet on the retreat when backing straight up, or while stepping over out of range, or when stepping out after extending into his right jab.










This habit wasn't a usually problematic one, as Whitaker used it as mainly a tool to reset. The Nelson fight is a perfect example.










Other times, he's used it while showboating, as when crossing his feet enabled him to backpedal furiously against De La Hoya.










Or to escape the ropes by simply walking towards the center and bypassing his opponent:


















Now can we really say that's "wrong" and disqualifies his technique as categorically flawed, when for every time Whitaker crosses his feet, there are countless instances of him circling an opponent with proper foot order, sliding back and forth with perfect timing, pivoting to a side angle in perfect balance, or stepping properly into his shots?

Your argument that Hopkins without footwork is helpless while Whitaker is not is a smokescreen argument meant to imply that because Hopkins relies solely on his footwork, Whitaker's cannot be superior. I stated from the outset that this is not an argument on who could do less with more, but simply who could do it better. And as I demonstrated throughout the rest of my post, Whitaker's is superior. He controlled the center of the ring better than Hopkins (Hopkins' own best quality), was just as adept at creating lateral offensive angles, and was superior at playing the game of inches in-range by taking subtle steps to set up and avoid punches.



Teeto said:


> The amount of foot crossing excludes Whitaker from a debate wherein footwork is concerned, because footwork is technical only.


In that case, let us exclude Mayweather, Rigondeaux, and Hopkins himself from any conversation on impressive quality footwork, due to the fact that they all cross their feet from time to time when circling an opponent out of range ("going for a walk"), or escaping the ropes (in particular Hopkins, who had no problem running right to the center of the ring from the ropes at Cloud's side.)



Teeto said:


> I believe it is you that has overlooked an a facet of Whitaker's game wherein his control of distance is concerned. That would be his jab. The greatest instrument that Whitaker ever used to control distance was his jab. Pernell Whitaker has the greatest and most varied jab in 135 pound history. Watch the footage, his flawed footwork plays a role, but because it is flawed and Hopkins' is not, it cannot be used as an argument over that of Bernard's footwork.


You addressed this later on, so you can't claim I neglected to mention it.



Bogotazo said:


> Hopkins has superb lateral movement, the best in the game today. But Whitaker's was superior. As mentioned before, Hopkins' lateral movement was to take away a punching angle and set up an ambush, but Whitaker's lateral movement was fixed into his offense. *It is difficult for a southpaw to consistently land a jab without turning into it, and none has ever done it better than Whitaker. Whitaker's default was to circle while jabbing, constantly circling his opponent and inviting his offense while scoring with his own, elegantly dancing around his opponent without wastefully or skittishly running from him (most of the time, anyway).* This can be seen in the same string of Whitaker victories mentioned before. And while Hopkins is a master of befuddling an opponent when cornered and escaping the ropes, Whitaker is not one who was rushed there quite as often. No other fighter since 1965 has been able to circle an opponent so completely while still maintaining their offense. While Whitaker is almost or just as capable of disengaging and ambushing an opponent as Hopkins is, he unquestionably trumps BHop's ability to maintain control in range while side-stepping and pivoting into his punches and recovering position after throwing without ever leaving the center of the ring.


Whitaker's jab and his ability to maintain the center of the ring are not independent of each other. Whitaker had a great jab, but it would have been useless without his ability to turn a fighter completely in the middle of the ring.



Teeto said:


> There is no doubt as to who is the better fighter, that would be Pernell, but footwork is not concerned with effectiveness overall, it is an isolated area to be examined on the basis of technical proficiency as per available footage. We can see the holes in Whitaker's footwork game and therefore he is excluded.


Again, a deviation from the conventional is only a hole if you fail to consistently use it to your advantage. Whitaker's crossing of the feet was not sloppy or uncalculated, it was an unconventional method he used to adjust himself over the course of a fight from time to time, while using otherwise textbook footwork.



Teeto said:


> On your claim that I overlooked footwork as a tool of controlling distance, this is also untrue. I mentioned in detail how Hopkins uses footwork to never let his man get set, never be in position to punch, controlling the centre of the ring. This is ring generalship, this is dictating the pace of the fight, this is the epitome of controlling distance.
> 
> This is ring generalship, and this is all that the great Bernard Hopkins had, he had no great natural attributes, no matrix like reflexes. What made him great was his footwork, his technique, his control of distance, and his ring generalship.


You're again trying to punish Whitaker for his gifted attributes. We know he had incredible reflexes and footspeed and upper body movement. It doesn't make his footwork any worse or Bernard's any better.



Teeto said:


> This doesn't make sense. There can be no example of a singular rule of his style when the examples you give are all different in style. You're giving examples that prove his versatility and then saying 'look this proves he wasn't versatile'.
> 
> There are no technical flaws in the makeup of Bernard Hopkins, only physical flaws. His problem was speed, Taylor, Jones, even as far up as Dawson, all faster fighters, none more technically rounded or proficient. The footwork of Bernard Hopkins is so versatile it equips him to deal with any scenario stylistically. The only spanner in the works is thrown in by a faster man. If all physical attributes are equal and constant, Hopkins wins.
> 
> Bernard Hopkins was great at controlling distance, this was what he did best. Even if you take the Calzaghe fight, the reason said fight was so 'boring' was because Hopkins totally controlled the pace and dictated the distance for more than the first half of the fight. Calzaghe could never get set. This is alien to Calzaghe who himself had fine circular footwork and was a windmill of a fighter. Hopkins' footwork was too superior.





Teeto said:


> Hopkins was not beaten in any sense at the footwork game by Taylor. Taylor doesn't sport great footwork and is basically a statue with a great jab and right cross. It doesn't make sense to put it down to footwork. Hopkins was simply beaten to the punch by a faster man, backed up, and unloaded on. Nothing indicated poor footwork. In the rematch Hopkins implemented his footwork better and won the fight on my card as he did on yours, so by your own standard of footwork being a measure gauged by effectiveness, this is surely a plus in your Hopkins footwork book.


I'm not claiming that Hopkins wasn't versatile, my claim is that Whitaker was superior at using his footwork in-range and keeping a fighter at the end of his shots without circling at an angle as wide a distance as Hopkins often did.

Speed was definitely a factor in Hopkins' losses, but I wasn't saying it was his footwork that was his downfall, but that the fights with Taylor specifically showed his limits when an opponent doesn't give the clear role of an aggressor or allows him to barge in on the inside. Hopkins-Taylor was largely a battle of jabs, and Hopkins had much trouble using the usual tactics that brought him so much success. As I said, he was often rushed back or lunging forward because Taylor was not obliging Hopkins with the usual puncher's mentality that gives Hopkins free reign to circle and ambush. Instead of dominating the game of inches at range (at a time when Hopkins' reflexes were just fine, really) as Whitaker often did, he looked limited.



Teeto said:


> Negative. Jermaine Taylor, as I have already mentioned, was able to beat Hopkins to the punch, he beat him due to the same reason that all his other masters beat him. Jermaine Taylor was too fast for Hopkins. His jab was at the time considered potentially ATG, and that jab kept beating Bernard to the punch, especially in the first fight, which I scored to Taylor.


Didn't you just earlier mention that Hopkins was able to neutralize a jab with great success?



Teeto said:


> Control of distance is key against a master jabber who only wants to establish that jab. Here we see the perfect kryptonite, lateral movement and control of distance so as to never allow the opponent's jab to be established.


He had done this to Pavlik, Pascal, and Wright, as you mentioned. But when a fighter is able to step in and out in subtle ways, Hopkins does not look as masterful, as the role of the matador is denied him. Here, Whitaker excelled.



Teeto said:


> Watch Pernell and tell me his footwork is the instrument that enabled him to slip in and out of range. It is not the case. Whitaker used angles to achieve that feat. He did it against Trinidad when his footwork was gone. Head movement, shoulder roll, and above all, his great jab. Don't get me wrong, what he was doing with his feet was brilliant, but as I say, so was what Ali was doing with his, and it doesn't make his technical flaws disappear. This is a discussion of footwork, and it is only technical.


I did just tell you.






It's clear on tape that Whitaker's subtle in-and-out footwork facilitate his ability to slip punches while still being in balance to punch. Not much more that needs to be said there.



Teeto said:


> You speak of Hopkins keeping a lot of distance between him and his opponent. What was Whitaker doing against Nelson? The difference is Hopkins' performance was done with minimal foot steps as opposed to Whitaker's continuous crossing over of the feet. If we observe both performances and look simply at footwork, it is clear that Hopkins is more economical. He does more with less.





Teeto said:


> Hopkins is often more economical at long range, I will concede that. But against Nelson, Whitaker wasn't traversing the ring and denying the punching angle to ambush the way Bernard does. It's great that Bernard is able to do so, but while Whitaker is also capable of creating distance between him and his opponent and maintaining it, he also excels at staying just in and out of range while sticking his jab and taking subtle side-steps. So while Bernard may circle with miles between and his opponent with minimal effort, Whitaker is able to slide just in and out of range more efficiently and needs not lunge or scurry as Hopkins had to so often against
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

ah man it's 3.30 am and I'm up tomorrow morning to go on holiday, you're gunna have to wait til I get back from holiday for me to read that and reply to it mate


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Teeto said:


> ah man it's 3.30 am and I'm up tomorrow morning to go on holiday, you're gunna have to wait til I get back from holiday for me to read that and reply to it mate


Last time you said that you came right back with a block-texted vengeance :lol:

No worries man, I'm going on a week-long vacation on Tuesday myself with my family.

I know you're concerned about the rest of the competition lagging, so we could end it here with two posts each, make it a 3 post limit instead of a 5, or just wait and continue after we come back. @Chatty watsup...


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> The idea that the measured worth of the execution of a skill should be measured in its closeness to conventional usage flies in the face of boxing's status as an art. It is a craft, but the execution of the craft is highly individual, and sometimes quite unorthodox. If you are here to argue who had the most conventional or textbook footwork of the modern era, I'm afraid you're posted in the wrong thread. Who is "better" has a lot to do with who did, well, better.


You can't twist what footwork is simply to fit your own agenda, due to the act that you have picked a man with fundamentally flawed footwork as the best at it. It doesn't work like that.

Boxing may be considered an art, but it is referred to as the sweet science for a very good reason, and that is because the technical aspects of it are scientific. You can do what you want in a boxing ring. You can dance around jog on the spot and a fight with that being a part of your gameplan, but if you do that, you can't claim that your footwork was great.

No matter how much you protest, footwork is a technical aspect of boxing. Footwork is not a results based business, boxing is. Footwork is not measured by how effectively a man moves. You're describing mobility, you're even describing ring generalship, but you are not describing footwork.

Carlos Monzon did not have great footwork, but he was a great ring general. Roy Jones jr did not have great footwork, but he was a great ring general.

By your standards, these men would have great footwork simply because they knew how to control distance by either keeping their men at bay with the jab or being ridiculously fast. The fact is that Monzon had poor footwork, was off balance due to it, and it was simply not a strong point.

Your stance must be that Hector Camacho was a great combination puncher then? Simply because he threw a lot of punches in bunches with effect? He clearly was not, he flurried a lot, and just as great mobility is not necessarily great footwork, great flurrying is not in a million years great combination punching.

Footwork is a technical facet of boxing, as is combination punching.

Your claim of me mixing up technical skill with conventional practice is completely off. If I was talking about conventional practice I would be claiming that James J. Corbett is the yardstick by which all boxers are measured. Your claim is bogus.



Bogotazo said:


> Roy Jones Jr. is a perfect example of why effectiveness should be an essential part of measuring the execution of a skill. Many have suggested that Roy Jones was unskilled, unschooled, unintelligent, and simply relied on his athleticism. I couldn't disagree more. Simply because of the fact Roy Jones did not have a conventional guard, he is dismissed as not being a technician. Again, I must emphasize the distinction between being technical, and being conventional.


It's clear that you're clutching at straws from the off. Trying to claim that Roy Jones excelled in any area of boxing which concerns technical proficiency and skill is a slippery slope and exhibits clearly that you either aren't knowledgeable on technical analysis or you know you're wrong and have to try something extreme to rescue your argument.

Your point here doesn't make sense. First of all you agree with me that Roy Jones is unskilled from a technical standpoint, and then you go on to talk about a distinction between being technical and conventional, which you don't need to clarify at all because I have already demonstrated that the two are not being confused with one another.

We're both in agreement, Roy Jones was mobile and athletic. His footwork was way off the mark. This is my point, and you're clarifying it for me.



Bogotazo said:


> If one is purposefully and successfully deviant from the norm, it is not a technical deficiency, but an innovation. It is a tactical stylistic choice designed to bait and lure or confuse an opponent at an opportune moment. Roy Jones, despite having his hands low, kept a superb control of distance, knew to slip towards the outside of both hands and what counters best to use from such a position, feinted brilliantly, had great punching form, and could punch while pivoting to a new angle. You have to know the rules to be able to break them, and Roy's mastery of a number of overlooked fundamentals allowed him to break one and work wonders with it.


Nobody is saying Roy Jones didn't have a good defense. Defense is not solely concerned with a technical skill. Defense can be made up of a multitude of tactics and they don't have to be technical skills. If Roy Jones puts his hands behind his back and dodges shots from Glen Kelley, he successfully evaded shots, therefore the defense that he employed worked. So what? Nobody in the right mind would claim that Roy parried well by doing that. Parrying is a technical skill.

Let me directly apply this to footwork to show why you're misunderstanding a fundamental concept;

Offense too is not only concerned with technical skill. Offense can be made up of a multitude of tactics and they don't have to be technical skills. If Ricardo Mayorga rushes Vernon Forrest and clubs him around the head he has successfully assaulted his opponent, therefore the offense he has employed worked. So what? Nobody in the right mind would claim that Ricardo worked the right cross well by doing that. The right cross is a technical skill.

Footwork is one aspect of boxing, it is a technical skill. It is not offense or defense. It can be employed as a tool in the grand scheme of either offense or defense.

Your point seems to be that because Roy Jones was not a fundamentalist that that makes him even better at the fundamentals. It doesn't make sense. One can be effective by doing whatever he likes as long as it either does the scoring or gets a KO. To do the scoring you simply have to hit without being hit. You don;t have to be a technician. Roy Jones is a perfect example.

The point you're making is that because Ricardo Mayorga was effective in his offense that we should rate him high as a combination puncher. It doesn't make sense.

Footwork is to movement what combination punching is to assault. We can't proclaim you to have good footwork if your feet are knocking into one another, no matter how fast or how good your jab is. We can't proclaim you to be a good combination puncher, no matter how many punches in bunches Calzaghe may throw in a slapping fashion.

We're discussing a technical skill. Trying to change the nature of the debate because you have chosen to champion a man with flawed footwork is glaring and not preferable.



Bogotazo said:


> As I said, purposeful deviations from convention can still have a technical purpose.


Again, your point is that because Ricardo Mayorga purposely swung his arms around like a drunken sailor then that makes him a technician.

It's ridiculous.



Bogotazo said:


> Ali's footwork was not at all conventional, but it's effectiveness was not without technical reasoning. Ali pranced around the ring at an almost complete side angle, crossing his feet constantly as he changed directions. His jab was always able to pump out in volume, and Ali's profile made it very difficult for opponents to predict his direction. For the context it was used in, Ali had effective footwork. Good footwork, at least. I don't think you could call it "bad" footwork simply for the fact that most fighters would fail using the same methods.


Muhammad Ali had fine footwork for the most part. The way Ali changed direction and came in and out at angles was pretty amazing. You'll find that I pointed out one flaw in his footwork, and that was that he backed up in straight lines. That point stands.

Again, your usage of the word 'conventional' as though it has been mistaken for the word 'technical' is a misnomer and invalid.



Bogotazo said:


> I suppose the bigger the deviation, the bigger the opportunity for critique. But here, we're discussing a man who largely mastered the fundamentals of footwork, used them to great effect in the ring and occasionally disegarded them.


It's not a deviation. You're using the word 'deviation' instead of the correct word, which is 'flaw'. Pernell did largely master the fundamentals, but largely doesn't mean completely. Pernell had flaws in his footwork and I have highlighted them clearly. You have acknowledged them and then attempted to make excuses for him by proclaiming them to be 'deviations'. He can't be deviating from something he never mastered in the first place.

Bernard Hopkins on the other hand completely mastered the fundamentals of footwork, whereas Pernell only largely did.

The debate is not about honourable mentions, it's about picking who was the best at this technical skill.

I can give you a list of tons of fighters who largely mastered footwork. Who cares?



Bogotazo said:


> Whitaker often crossed his feet on the retreat when backing straight up, or while stepping over out of range, or when stepping out after extending into his right jab.


Yeah and Bernard didn't, or if he did it was far less than Pernell's levels of mistakes. That's why his footwork was better, because it wasn't fundamentally flawed as was Pernell's.



Bogotazo said:


> This habit wasn't a usually problematic one, as Whitaker used it as mainly a tool to reset. The Nelson fight is a perfect example.


Bernard didn't need to make this mistake to reset, Bernard is so ahead of his opponent's feet and positioning that they rarely get set. Against Nelson, Pernell is using a million foot steps and doing all kinds of stuff that would make Manny Steward spew his guts up. Against Tito, Hopkins' footwork is flawless and he doesn't need to expend the same amount of energy on his footwork, because it is better.

In fact, footwork is far less of a Pernell Whitaker mainstay than it is a Hopkins one. Whitaker was big on going right to his opponents in centre ring and beating them up in the pocket. Footwork is Hopkins, that's what makes him who he is.



Bogotazo said:


> Other times, he's used it while showboating, as when crossing his feet enabled him to backpedal furiously against De La Hoya.


This isn't really relevant, I'm not unterested in show boating. Just in the fact that Pernell Whitaker didn't have the fundamentals down as Hopkins did, and that he had to expend far more energy than him in regards to his footwork.



Bogotazo said:


> Or to escape the ropes by simply walking towards the center and bypassing his opponent:


Hopkins didn't make this mistake anywhere near as much.



Bogotazo said:


> Now can we really say that's "wrong" and disqualifies his technique as categorically flawed, when for every time Whitaker crosses his feet, there are countless instances of him circling an opponent with proper foot order, sliding back and forth with perfect timing, pivoting to a side angle in perfect balance, or stepping properly into his shots?


This isn't rocket science. Walking around crossing your feet and keeping your hands down in front of a fighter to show boat, is not technical, and yes it is technically flawed, simply because you can pay a price for it. If you are super human like Whitaker and Roy Jones and Muhammad Ali then you're fortunate to be able to make these technical errors and get away with it. If that is the case, it does not however mean that you have good footwork or a good guard. These are technical elements of the game.

What you say about circling, you seem to put a massive reliance on your argument on ability to circle an opponent maintaining technical proficiency






Japanese legend Jiro Watanabe performs to a tee, just as well as Whitaker in terms of effective circling of his man, and with far less errors from a fundamental standpoint. I see no reason to pick Pernell over Jiro as your candidate based on your own criteria. It seems strange.



Bogotazo said:


> Your argument that Hopkins without footwork is helpless while Whitaker is not is a smokescreen argument meant to imply that because Hopkins relies solely on his footwork, Whitaker's cannot be superior. I stated from the outset that this is not an argument on who could do less with more, but simply who could do it better. And as I demonstrated throughout the rest of my post, Whitaker's is superior. He controlled the center of the ring better than Hopkins (Hopkins' own best quality), was just as adept at creating lateral offensive angles, and was superior at playing the game of inches in-range by taking subtle steps to set up and avoid punches.


First of all no, what I said about Hopkins relying more on technique than super human non-technical ability and Whitaker being the opposite, was not the basis of the argument. It was an adding of context, and it is a fact.

Second of all. No Whitaker is not better. You seem to be confusing ring generalship with footwork.

When the other guy interfered in the argument I replied to him but then he deleted his post so I cut and edited my reply but I saved it. His argument was in identical to yours so I'm going to add it here.



Cableaddict said:


> Compare Whittaker to Hopkins:
> Hopkins, brilliant as he was, would often back up with the sole intention of "getting out of there." He was great at it, but he would NOT always be in perfect position to throw a powerful counter. Whittaker was. He could land hard counters while simultaneously moving backwards, because his feet were perfectly placed at all times.


you're confusing ring generalship with footwork. Great footwork is not a given simply on the basis of maintenance of distance. Carlos Monzon did not have great footwork, his feet were crossing over all the time, his circular movement was not fantastic, but he was a great ring general and this meant he dictated the optimal distance of his opponent to him, and controlled the pace of the fight. The main tool he used was the same as what Whitaker did, and that was the jab. Roy Jones was not a great footwork man, but he was a great ring general and because of his timing and natural athleticism. He maintained distance without being a great technician in any sense of the game.

Footwork is a technical aspect of boxing. As is punching form. Pernell Whitaker backing up and landing counters while crossing over his feet and doing all kinds of unorthodox and unconventional twists and turns is not a measure of footwork. It's a measure of his countering ability and his awkwardness. His footwork was quality in its unique way, but we are discussing a technical facet of the game, and Bernard Hopkins is technique. His footwork had no flaws.

Effectiveness in terms of mobility, and ring generalship, are not the same thing as technical proficiency in terms of footwork.



Cableaddict said:


> Compare Whittaker to Olivares:
> Olivares was indeed a spectacular fighter, but when he moved, he tended to bring his feet together a bit. Watch him carefully: when throwing from outside or even mid-range, he would usually have to plant his lead foot forward. - Partly to close the distance, but also to maximize his leverage. It worked for him, but it's also why a lot of his punches missed, or didn't have power, because he failed to move that front foot. Whittaker rarely, if ever, had that "problem."


Pernell Whitaker did not have better footwork than Ruben Olivares. Ruben Olivares was from a technical standpoint at least the best Mexican fighter of all time, hands down.

Look at Whitaker moving around excessively, or crossing his feet and performing plenty of unorthodox super-man maneuvers. Now look at Olivares. Olivares' feet were always planted when they needed to be. His combination punching is the best I have ever seen from a technical perspective. His greatness came from a deep rooted understanding of punching form and how to turn the knuckles over at the optimal moment. The effects were devastating to another level. Now look at how his footwork was the basis for everything he did. I know a man whose father foot the great Olivares, and he told me himself his father always said Olivares' footwork was the thing that made him (quote) 'a master of range'. His let jab always extended, creating a false sense of distance for his opponents, they would be lured in, and the way Olivares was able to use his leverage from propelling his left foot out to the side and then reign in with the finest combinations of punches on film was sublime. It was his balance, his poise, it was all from his footwork.

His lateral movement, again, better than Whitaker's from a technical perspective. Side to side, feet always in position and never off balance. Whitaker by contrast, was off balance so often you could set bet on it. His feet crossing over and backing up in straight lines. Olivares was never guilty of these technical shortcomings.



Cableaddict said:


> Now, one can argue that Olivares technique had the advantage of safety - you stay further away until ready to strike - and that would be valid. However, that argument does not apply when a fighter is backing up. Also, Whittaker had enough speed, reflexes, and ring IQ to "fight from a safe distance" even with his feet properly spread: He was athletically gifted, as well as technically proficient.


Whitaker being athletically gifted is the point. Footwork is not concerned with athleticism. Mobility is concerned with athleticism. Footwork is technical, and Whitaker had his flaws. We are discussing the best ever in a technical facet.



Cableaddict said:


> The only possible negative thing you can say about Whittaker's footwork is that it expended a great deal of energy. Contrast it with, say, Golovkin's economical stalking, or even the footwork of one of Teeto's favs, Olivares. The Whittaker style could theoretically be a problem in the late rounds, if your opponent is a Golovkin, or Kovalev, or Froch. But effective?
> 
> Fawgeddaboudit.
> 
> "Bogo Knows Boxing."


Thanks for proving a point I already made before you came in and ruined my debate. Whitaker and Hopkins both on the backfoot are easy to compare. Whitaker took twice as many steps as Hopkins did to get the same type of job done. Hopkins' footwork is more economical, he is able to do more with less, because his technique is all he has and it is what makes him a great fighter. Unlike Whitaker, who was highly skilled.



Bogotazo said:


> In that case, let us exclude Mayweather, Rigondeaux, and Hopkins himself from any conversation on impressive quality footwork, due to the fact that they all cross their feet from time to time when circling an opponent out of range ("going for a walk"), or escaping the ropes (in particular Hopkins, who had no problem running right to the center of the ring from the ropes at Cloud's side.)


You're confused as to what's being said. Nobody is excluding anyone on the basis that they made mistakes. I'm excluding Whitaker because he made more than Hopkins did.



Bogotazo said:


> You addressed this later on, so you can't claim I neglected to mention it.
> 
> Whitaker's jab and his ability to maintain the center of the ring are not independent of each other. Whitaker had a great jab, but it would have been useless without his ability to turn a fighter completely in the middle of the ring.


I'm not claiming they are independent of one another. His jab was better than his footwork though. Anyway



Bogotazo said:


> Again, a deviation from the conventional is only a hole if you fail to consistently use it to your advantage. Whitaker's crossing of the feet was not sloppy or uncalculated, it was an unconventional method he used to adjust himself over the course of a fight from time to time, while using otherwise textbook footwork.


Again, conventional is not of my concern. Footwork is. Hopkins didn't do this, his footwork was perfect and it was better than Whitaker's, which was fundamentally flawed.

Conventional would mean going back to kangaroo style boxing and having big moustaches like John L.

I ain't about that life no mo'



Bogotazo said:


> You're again trying to punish Whitaker for his gifted attributes. We know he had incredible reflexes and footspeed and upper body movement. It doesn't make his footwork any worse or Bernard's any better. .


I'm not punishing him, I'm explaining what made him great because you have it wrong.



Bogotazo said:


> I'm not claiming that Hopkins wasn't versatile, my claim is that Whitaker was superior at using his footwork in-range and keeping a fighter at the end of his shots without circling at an angle as wide a distance as Hopkins often did.


'using his footwork', yeah, his flawed footwork. Hopkins used his better footwork to make opponents hardly ever be in position to throw shots. It doesn't matter that Whitaker was great at keeping guys at the end of his shots. He did that when he was beating people up on the inside, pushed them back. Hopkins wasn't stepping round a million times to get around the ring, one or two steps and his opponent wouldn't even consider the shot. People are throwing a million punches at Pernell because he's constantly a target. His footwork was not as good as Bernard's.



Bogotazo said:


> Speed was definitely a factor in Hopkins' losses, but I wasn't saying it was his footwork that was his downfall, but that the fights with Taylor specifically showed his limits when an opponent doesn't give the clear role of an aggressor or allows him to barge in on the inside. Hopkins-Taylor was largely a battle of jabs, and Hopkins had much trouble using the usual tactics that brought him so much success. As I said, he was often rushed back or lunging forward because Taylor was not obliging Hopkins with the usual puncher's mentality that gives Hopkins free reign to circle and ambush. Instead of dominating the game of inches at range (at a time when Hopkins' reflexes were just fine, really) as Whitaker often did, he looked limited.


This doesn't refute my point though. The point is that Jermain Taylor operated too fast for Hopkins.

Your argument that it was Hopkins' footwork that wasn't up to enabling him to win the fight can't hold up. Hopkins always had trouble with speed, which is not a technical issue. Footwork is a technical issue, Taylor did nothing to negate Bernard's footwork, he simply beat him to the punch.



Bogotazo said:


> Didn't you just earlier mention that Hopkins was able to neutralize a jab with great success?


yeah but he had issues with speed



Bogotazo said:


> He had done this to Pavlik, Pascal, and Wright, as you mentioned. But when a fighter is able to step in and out in subtle ways, Hopkins does not look as masterful, as the role of the matador is denied him. Here, Whitaker excelled.


This is just not true. Hopkins excelled against multiple fighters who tried to deny him the role of the matador. William Joppy was one, Glen Johnson was another. In fact Joe Calzaghe never allowed Bernard to be the matador but it simply happened anyway. Oscar is another example but it depends on whether you want to take that because of the weight issue, if you don't then you can exclude Nelson from any talk of Whitaker's lateral movement though.

As I said, Hopkins has no technical weakness, especially not with men who don't want to allow him the matador role, but he did have an issue with a non-technical issue, and that was speed.

As illustrated by Roy Jones, Jermain Taylor, and later on Dawson.



Bogotazo said:


> I did just tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, there's no argument here that Pernell Whitaker couldn't hunt a man down well. The case is simply that his footwork was far more flawed than Hopkins' was.



Bogotazo said:


> Hopkins is often more economical at long range, I will concede that. But against Nelson, Whitaker wasn't traversing the ring and denying the punching angle to ambush the way Bernard does. It's great that Bernard is able to do so, but while Whitaker is also capable of creating distance between him and his opponent and maintaining it, he also excels at staying just in and out of range while sticking his jab and taking subtle side-steps. So while Bernard may circle with miles between and his opponent with minimal effort, Whitaker is able to slide just in and out of range more efficiently and needs not lunge or scurry as Hopkins had to so often against


the reason why Whitaker can slide around though is because of his angles and head movement more so than his flawed footwork. When you're Pernell Whitaker and you know that a guy can throw a handful of rice at you and miss with each grain because you're on some superman swag, it's not really about your footowork when you're getting in your opponent's range.



Bogotazo said:


> Whitaker may cross his feet more often, but he also achieves greater feats circling his opponent while claiming the center and using his offense in conjunction with his footwork. He did not need to disengage as Hopkins did, as his footwork enabled him to create more consistent opportunities offensively without sacrificing his defense.


Again, if your argument is based on circling, you picked the wrong man because you should have went with someone like Watanabe as aforementioned or Ken Buchanan who did it without all the mistakes.













Bogotazo said:


> Hopkins was more efficient coming forward, but Whitaker was more efficient and effective with an opponent right at the end of his punches, which is a range Hopkins did not often demonstrate his abilities at.


Hopkins certainly was more efficient with his footwork when coming forward.

When he did demonstrate his abilities to keep his opponents at his optimal range his footwork was just fine

round 6, case in point






sublime circling skills also, and with minimal fundamental errors unlike Pernell

same goes for Tarver, Tito etc



Bogotazo said:


> Claiming the center and setting traps in range while circling isn't really being a backfoot man. Lateral movement doesn't only mean a disengaged walk around the ring while preventing an opponent from setting themselves. While Whitaker used his jab to control the center of the ring, to land it as a Southpaw, he constantly had to turn into it and step in and out. His ring generalship allowed him to control the center without retreating. Other times, he did retreat, leading his man around the ring and walking him into traps with mo


I never said claiming the centre of the ring is being a backfoot man. That's my whole point, Whitaker was not generally a backfoot man, he was a ring general who dominated centre ring. I never said lateral movement is a disengaged walk around the ring. A disengaged walk around the ring is what Pernell did a lot. Lateral movement is this guy








Bogotazo said:


> Again, lateral movement and setting up the jab are not always two different things. Hopkins was much more comfortable disengaging and stepping side to side against an opponent. Though against Trinidad, he establishes his jab early on, but simply isn't as effective circling as efficiently in-range as
> Whitaker is.


Again, watch Hopkins vs Echols 2 if you want to see circling with less fundamental flaws than Whitaker, and again if circling is the main criteria to you then you picked the wrong man. Whitaker walking around the ring against Nelson isn't the same kind of circular movement around centre ring while pumping out a jab that Watanabe was practicing. Whitaker mainly dominates centre ring as opposed to circling so I don't see this case to be made.

Whitaker can't touch Bernard when it comes to being economical with footwork, and that's why he trumps him. Whitaker is always a target despite using so many steps. Bernard is less of a target with far fewer steps and against the likes of Pavlik and Tito he is often in range, so the notion that he stays very far away from opponents to evade them is pretty much a conspiracy theory. Up there with some David Icke stuff reptilian world takeover stuff.



Bogotazo said:


> Additionally, Nelson was a fighter who was at times determined to walk Whitaker down, whereas Trinidad was busy trying to set his feet for one big power punch as the fight went on.


You don't think Tito was trying to walk Hopkins down? :lol:

the reason he couldn't get set is because he was constantly being outmaneuvered by Bernard Hopkins



Bogotazo said:


> On this point there is no reconciliation. While Whitaker's entire arsenal was used to neutralize Chavez's offence, the first 4 rounds of the fight determined that Whitaker's superior footwork was what enabled him to choose when he would fight inside or outside, and how to evade Chavez's punches and offensive angle without sacrificing his balance or being out of position to punch. Again, for every time you want to point to Whitaker crossing his feet, there are many more instances of Whitaker controlling the center and shifting direction and using angles to his advantage both offensively and defensively. No amount of foot-speed is going to stop a fighter from paying dearly against such a fighter unless they can choose when to deviate from the convention and otherwise execute great textbook footwork.


Whitaker having better footwork than Chavez is not the point though. You claimed that the reason Whitaker did so well against Chavez was because of his footwork. If this is the case, it can't be used as an argument as to him being the best at footwork in the modern era, because look at what he's doing.

Look at round 9






This isn't just the odd crossing of the feet. This is happening a fair deal, throughout the fight. And also, look at how much of the success comes from upper body movement, angles, the jab. This is not something that comes from footwork as a given, as you make out. Look at James Toney's usage of angles, it's got nothing to do with footwork, he is largely an isolated target. So the notion that you can just claim that a fighter's upper body movement and offering of angles means that his footwork enabled him to make such an offering.

Again, your talk of a deviation from a convention is a misnomer.



Bogotazo said:


> He's doing this against one of the best pressure fighters of all time, mind you. He's doing this against Julio Cesar Chavez, and dropping about 3 rounds in the process. This fight is not a phone-booth fight where Whitaker dominates JCC on the inside for most of all 12 rounds, it is a constant bull VS matador dynamic where Whitaker takes over after the first 4 and decides the range and angle at which the fight will be fought at all times.


It isn't constantly a bull vs matador. At times Whitaker is glad to meet him, it's like reindeer vs reindeer locking horns at times. The first 4 rounds is only one third of the fight man.

Again, usage of angles are not necessarily consistent with footwork, Nicollino Locche, James Toney, those fighters will prove that to you. So the claim that the angles and upper body movement were due to footwork are void. This fight in itself shows Pernell offering many angles inside on the strength of his upper body skill.



Bogotazo said:


> I will let the readers decide, but I maintain that Hopkins hasn't shown an exhibition of footwork comparable to Whitaker's against Julio Cesar Chavez in terms of quality of opposition. He has out-maneuvered Pavlik, Pascal, an Wright, but it's clear on tape that Whitaker's footwork was an essential element of his victory over Chavez.


Hopkins has outmaneuvered almost everyone he has shared a ring with, that's the point. Whitaker boxing exclusively on the backfoot for the first few rounds against Chavez and then starting to punch him up and reverting to type with a lot of fundamental flaws is not a case to be made as trumping Hopkins in an area of the game wherein he is more fundamentally flawed than him. Again, saying that Whitaker's footwork is great because his mobility is effective is akin to saying Hector Camacho or Manny Pacquiao are great combination punchers, they're not, they put a lot of punches in bunches but from a technical perspective they were pretty basic. Combination punching is not flurrying, it's a technical aspect of boxing with a lot of science to it, and the relationship between footwork and mobility is the same.

Am I saying Whitaker had bad footwork? Of course not. Hopkins never made half the mistakes Pernell did. And that's why there's only one answer, because this is about technical proficiency.








Bogotazo said:


> How can usage of angles not be considered part of footwork?!


like this













Bogotazo said:


> Weaving out and exiting the side door, or turning in either direction to set up an offensive combination, or walking a fighter into a shot by turning them leading and turning them in your direction are all skills that require good footwork. Without the fundamentals, this is impossible.


Nobody is saying usage of angles is necessarily mutually exclusive from footwork, but no it isn't impossible without using footwork being the main ingredient, and I've provided examples :good



Bogotazo said:


> This returns back to the difference of philosophy as to whether a deviation of conventional technique is "wrong" when someone who has clearly mastered the fundamental chooses to implement it. As I said, one has to know the rules to know when to break them. You can teach a fighter the "right" way, but a fighter will know on their own what the right way is for _them_ individually.


No it doesn't. I've explained this so many times. Convention is not skill. Technique can be improved on, and that is skill, not convention. Convention is stuck in the past unless it is updated, as technique is. Making fundamental errors (like Pernell did throughout his career) which can put you at danger is not great technique. If you are so athletically gifted or skilled in other areas of your game (like Whitaker was with his upper body movement) then just because you can get away with said flaws doesn't make your technique or skill great, and it certainly doesn't mean your errors should be recommended to anybody else.

Bernard is boxing 101 and should be recommended to young aspiring fighters who want to learn the fundamentals of footwork.

Unless you are Neo from the matrix (or Hilario Zapata), you should stay a million miles away from trying to emulate Pernell Whitaker, because you're going to get mauled.



Bogotazo said:


> Whitaker may have crossed his feet more often, but he also exhibited more dynamism in integrating his footwork with his offense and defense. Hopkins may be more conservative and careful in his application of footwork, but in doing so, fails to show the same abilities that Whitaker did in that category. Whitaker was able to circle in-range more effectively, fight an opponent at the end of his punches with much greater comfort and accuracy, and did so against the CLEARLY superior opponent and pressure-fighter to any single fighter on Hopkins' resume. And in doing so, Whitaker proved that his footwork was indeed better. The (modern) best.


Again with the circling, no, you've picked the wrong man. Walking around crossing your feet and stepping back over them isn't circling. Domination centre ring isn't cirlcing. He could circle at times but you've picked the wrong man if that's what you're concerned with because he was not the best at it from a technical perspective. Hopkins handcuffed a great opponent in Trinidad, and footwork WAS at the heart of that. Footwork which was technically perfect. Whitaker outboxed and outfought Chavez, but the argument for his footwork is a misnomer because of the high amount of fundamental flaws in the perfromance.

right, I'm going on fucking holiday now and I've had no sleep, I want to be your friend again now and I'm sorry if I can be obnoxious in debate. I love you x


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Last time you said that you came right back with a block-texted vengeance :lol:
> 
> No worries man, I'm going on a week-long vacation on Tuesday myself with my family.
> 
> I know you're concerned about the rest of the competition lagging, so we could end it here with two posts each, make it a 3 post limit instead of a 5, or just wait and continue after we come back. @Chatty watsup...


I love you man, I just want to be your friend again now


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Teeto won this


----------



## devon (Jun 5, 2013)

Every single time Bogotazo or Teeto posts they make me change my mind about which ones right. Both guys should move up


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

devon said:


> Every single time Bogotazo or Teeto posts they make me change my mind about which ones right. Both guys should move up


Its' a great back and forth discussion, but there is a clear winner here...


----------



## devon (Jun 5, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Its' a great back and forth discussion, but there is a clear winner here...


Is it over?


----------



## ~Cellzki~ (Jun 3, 2013)

Jesus.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I'll be back on things to sort out the comp this afternoon, had loads of bday parties on over the weekend so hardly been home like.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Teeto TKO 12 in a back and furth classic.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

That was a great debate that included an interesting dichotomy of view points. I'll give my thoughts once I know this is finally over.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

What do you's want to do then @Teeto @Bogotazo

We can make 3 posts and then just have Bogos next post the last or yous can wait it out till after. Its been a quality debate like but I can't really predict how quick its gonna move ahead, theres only a couple finished but I expect most to finish up this week now that the weekend is over.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Chatty said:


> What do you's want to do then @Teeto @Bogotazo
> 
> We can make 3 posts and then just have Bogos next post the last or yous can wait it out till after. Its been a quality debate like but I can't really predict how quick its gonna move ahead, theres only a couple finished but I expect most to finish up this week now that the weekend is over.


Given the insane amount of text, I'd personally rather just have one more post and be done with it.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) said:


> bballchump11 the diplomat


yeah both of them have different definitions of footwork it seems. I think both are right though which is making it hard for me to choose. I'll go more in-depth when it's over though


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Overtime round?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One of these guys made a poor choice but has done a commendable job in defending his position.

Still a poor choice, though...


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

So this ends Friday at 6, correct? I'll probably post a response tonight. @Chatty we'll end it there at 3 each correct?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> So this ends Friday at 6, correct? I'll probably post a response tonight. @Chatty we'll end it there at 3 each correct?


Yeah, I dont think Teeto will be back on this week so that'll be the end.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

There's more than enough good stuff in those 3 posts to declare a winner.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Good, I can't wait to share my opinion


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Great debate about one of my favorite subjects.

Next time we do one of these, I'd love to participate.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Brownies said:


> There's more than enough good stuff in those 3 posts to declare a winner.


I have 1 left. The fat lady is just warming up.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogo sucks :ibutt!!!!


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Teeto said:


> You can't twist what footwork is simply to fit your own agenda, due to the act that you have picked a man with fundamentally flawed footwork as the best at it. It doesn't work like that.


What footwork is is a collection of skills involving movement which are interrelated to other skills necessary for the practice of the sport of boxing. I picked a man who was more able to execute these various skills than the man you picked. One's footwork is only truly flawed if one cannot get rid of perpetual habits, habits which have no purpose, and end up constantly paying for those habits in the ring.



Teeto said:


> Boxing may be considered an art, but it is referred to as the sweet science for a very good reason, and that is because the technical aspects of it are scientific. You can do what you want in a boxing ring. You can dance around jog on the spot and a fight with that being a part of your gameplan, but if you do that, you can't claim that your footwork was great.


If your footwork is _otherwise _ correct, complete, and excellent, any sort of dancing, jogging, or otherwise unorthodox stepping does not invalidate an otherwise proficient skill-set. Jimi Hendrix is no less skilled for strumming the guitar roughly with his teeth from time to time.



Teeto said:


> No matter how much you protest, footwork is a technical aspect of boxing. Footwork is not a results based business, boxing is. Footwork is not measured by how effectively a man moves. You're describing mobility, you're even describing ring generalship, but you are not describing footwork.


Everything is a technical aspect of boxing. It's baffling how you can suggest footwork is not a results-based business, while boxing is. The feet are practically the soul of a boxer's style. The stance and posture of a fighter depends on the placement and width between their feet. The fluidity of their combinations depends on their balance. Even the power of the punches thrown depends on the ability to pivot on the ball.

Mobility is a feature of footwork. Ring generalship is a skill that involves footwork. Those things depend on a functional, purposeful movement of the feet.



Teeto said:


> Carlos Monzon did not have great footwork, but he was a great ring general. Roy Jones jr did not have great footwork, but he was a great ring general.
> 
> By your standards, these men would have great footwork simply because they knew how to control distance by either keeping their men at bay with the jab or being ridiculously fast. The fact is that Monzon had poor footwork, was off balance due to it, and it was simply not a strong point.


One cannot take a single skill involving footwork and equate it to the category of footwork itself. How good a particular fighter is in terms of footwork depends on a number of factors, and the results may lie on one end, or the other, or in-between. We're discussing a technically proficient fighter in Pernell Whitaker, who used unorthodoxy to his advantage. And this unorthodoxy did not outright define his style or consume his performances, but rather peppered them. Crossing his feet was not the only way the man knew how to move, although you've suggested nothing else in your attempts to slander the man.



Teeto said:


> Your stance must be that Hector Camacho was a great combination puncher then? Simply because he threw a lot of punches in bunches with effect? He clearly was not, he flurried a lot, and just as great mobility is not necessarily great footwork, great flurrying is not in a million years great combination punching.


Flurrying and combination punching are generally considered two distinct things. You could call Camacho's combinations quick, you could call them effective, but you probably wouldn't call them combinations at all in the first place. You'd call them flurries.

Here, we're talking footwork, and that covers a whole lot.



Teeto said:


> Footwork is a technical facet of boxing, as is combination punching.


As is everything else in boxing. This does not mean that purposeful deviations subtract from the value of an execution of a skill.



Teeto said:


> Your claim of me mixing up technical skill with conventional practice is completely off. If I was talking about conventional practice I would be claiming that James J. Corbett is the yardstick by which all boxers are measured. Your claim is bogus.


Except what have you done in this thread besides base your entire argument on the fact that Whitaker at times crossed his feet, while Hopkins didn't? How can your position be characterized as anything other than a declaration that the conventional is the exclusive category for praise?



Teeto said:


> It's clear that you're clutching at straws from the off. Trying to claim that Roy Jones excelled in any area of boxing which concerns technical proficiency and skill is a slippery slope and exhibits clearly that you either aren't knowledgeable on technical analysis or you know you're wrong and have to try something extreme to rescue your argument.


If I needed something extreme to win my argument, I might have been the one to bring up Roy Jones Jr. in the first place. But since you were the first to mention him in a blatant attempt to devalue Whitaker via negative association, I had to correct your ridiculous premise (and rather newbish perpetuation of the myth) that Roy Jones was technically clueless, when he was in fact technically sound in a variety of often overlooked areas and deviated from conventional technique to his consistent advantage.



Teeto said:


> Your point here doesn't make sense. First of all you agree with me that Roy Jones is unskilled from a technical standpoint, and then you go on to talk about a distinction between being technical and conventional, which you don't need to clarify at all because I have already demonstrated that the two are not being confused with one another.
> 
> We're both in agreement, Roy Jones was mobile and athletic. His footwork was way off the mark. This is my point, and you're clarifying it for me.


Roy Jones was technically skilled, only those too ignorant or lazy to examine the many facets of technical boxing will label him technically unskilled for the fact that he lacked a conventional guard.



Teeto said:


> Nobody is saying Roy Jones didn't have a good defense. Defense is not solely concerned with a technical skill. Defense can be made up of a multitude of tactics and they don't have to be technical skills. If Roy Jones puts his hands behind his back and dodges shots from Glen Kelley, he successfully evaded shots, therefore the defense that he employed worked. So what? Nobody in the right mind would claim that Roy parried well by doing that. Parrying is a technical skill.


But Roy exhibited being able to otherwise parry and defend well in a multitude of ways. The exception is not the rule. Not for Whitaker crossing his feet, nor for Roy Jones putting his hands behind his back.



Teeto said:


> Let me directly apply this to footwork to show why you're misunderstanding a fundamental concept;
> 
> Offense too is not only concerned with technical skill. Offense can be made up of a multitude of tactics and they don't have to be technical skills. If Ricardo Mayorga rushes Vernon Forrest and clubs him around the head he has successfully assaulted his opponent, therefore the offense he has employed worked. So what? Nobody in the right mind would claim that Ricardo worked the right cross well by doing that. The right cross is a technical skill.


Thankfully Whitaker's style and identity as a fighter goes nowhere near the level of barbarity Mayorga's did.



Teeto said:


> Footwork is one aspect of boxing, it is a technical skill. It is not offense or defense. It can be employed as a tool in the grand scheme of either offense or defense.
> Your point seems to be that because Roy Jones was not a fundamentalist that that makes him even better at the fundamentals. It doesn't make sense. One can be effective by doing whatever he likes as long as it either does the scoring or gets a KO. To do the scoring you simply have to hit without being hit. You don;t have to be a technician. Roy Jones is a perfect example.


My point is that you have to know the rules to know when to break them to your advantage. And Jones did it very well. And when one purposefully deviates from technical convention, to call it "wrong" and punish them for their ability to do so is pointless.



Teeto said:


> The point you're making is that because Ricardo Mayorga was effective in his offense that we should rate him high as a combination puncher. It doesn't make sense.


No, it isn't. Nothing about Whitaker's footwork could ever be compared to Mayorga's woeful punching technique. Mayorga didn't occasionally loop a straight right, he knew nothing else than to club with it. Whitaker's footwork was a collection of mastered skills with the occasional deviation.



Teeto said:


> Footwork is to movement what combination punching is to assault. We can't proclaim you to have good footwork if your feet are knocking into one another, no matter how fast or how good your jab is. We can't proclaim you to be a good combination puncher, no matter how many punches in bunches Calzaghe may throw in a slapping fashion.


You're trying to paint Whitaker's footwork as if he knew no other way to move than to cross his feet, just as Calzaghe could not punch if he was not slapping. You're distracting the argument and associating a small habit of Whitaker's with permanent and costly flaws exhibited by lesser fighters. Whitaker could punch in perfect balance, step in and out of range with perfect subtlety, circle an opponent completely, establish lateral angles, etc. This is no unschooled stumbling fool we're discussing here. 


Teeto said:


> We're discussing a technical skill. Trying to change the nature of the debate because you have chosen to champion a man with flawed footwork is glaring and not preferable.


We're discussing a category of skills which need not be devalued for successful deviations from convention. This is not "who had the least flawed footwork". Rant about Whitaker's crossed feet all you like, it doesn't change the fact that he was much more capable of dynamically using his feet as a tool in a boxing ring in both technically proficient and unorthodox ways.



Teeto said:


> Again, your point is that because Ricardo Mayorga purposely swung his arms around like a drunken sailor then that makes him a technician.
> 
> It's ridiculous.


And again you try to associate Whitaker's refined ability with the wildness of a brawler in order to discredit my argument. Moving on.



Teeto said:


> Muhammad Ali had fine footwork for the most part. The way Ali changed direction and came in and out at angles was pretty amazing. You'll find that I pointed out one flaw in his footwork, and that was that he backed up in straight lines. That point stands.


That's fair. What I was stressing was that his unorthodox side-profile and crossing of the feet had purpose, and despite being technically unconventional, should not be called wrong.



Teeto said:


> Again, your usage of the word 'conventional' as though it has been mistaken for the word 'technical' is a misnomer and invalid.
> 
> 
> > It is not. You cannot grasp the concept of "making wrong right" as a valuable ability.
> ...


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Well that was exhausting. Glad it's over. @Chatty do it up.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

since the debate is over, I'm ready to give my opinion



Bogotazo said:


> What footwork is is a collection of skills involving movement which are interrelated to other skills necessary for the practice of the sport of boxing. I picked a man who was more able to execute these various skills than the man you picked. One's footwork is only truly flawed if one cannot get rid of perpetual habits, habits which have no purpose, and end up constantly paying for those habits in the ring.


this is an excellent point and I've been wanting to mention this in regards to Sweet Pea's habit of crossing his feet. One big reason he does this is to conserve energy and be relaxed. A lot of pure boxers and slicksters will walk around the ring and cross their feet on the outside in order to reset and keep moving while in a cool manner.

Rigondeaux is a good example. Many fans say he has the best footwork today, and when he's in punching range, he's always balance, in his stance and steps with his feet correctly keeping the right distance between them. But when he's on the outside trying to keep moving, he'll cross his feet and walk around the ring relaxed

You can observe this in the Cordova fight. Early on when he's offensive minded and in range, his feet are rarely crossing. After the knockdown, he'll do it often trying to keep distance






go to 36:39 to see what I'm talking about


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> since the debate is over, I'm ready to give my opinion
> 
> this is an excellent point and I've been wanting to mention this in regards to Sweet Pea's habit of crossing his feet. One big reason he does this is to conserve energy and be relaxed. A lot of pure boxers and slicksters will walk around the ring and cross their feet on the outside in order to reset and keep moving while in a cool manner.
> 
> ...


Thanks for showing love BBall. I used Rigo as an example in my post because it's something he does all the time and it doesn't at all subtract from his clear mastery. Also great point about staying comfortable, I didn't want to focus on that point that much and it slipped my mind to mention it, but being relaxed is a huge part of staying sharp, and resetting the fight by stepping over is a common one. (@Chatty this is just post-debate shit talk, that's allowed right? I'm not trying to add anything to my argument.)


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Laguna getting sloppy on the outside using his "superior" footwork is also one of the reasons I feel Floyd would light him up.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Thanks for showing love BBall. I used Rigo as an example in my post because it's something he does all the time and it doesn't at all subtract from his clear mastery. Also great point about staying comfortable, I didn't want to focus on that point that much and it slipped my mind to mention it, but being relaxed is a huge part of staying sharp, and resetting the fight by stepping over is a common one. (@Chatty this is just post-debate shit talk, that's allowed right? I'm not trying to add anything to my argument.)


no prob. I'm actually teaching myself to cross my feet (I know it sounds weird) in my own footwork to help my self relax and maneuver better on the outside. I used to take the technique too literal and tried to always keep my feet the same distance apart with small steps, hands up, etc like most new boxers would, but the problem with that is it's too deliberate sometimes, awkward which in turn will tire you out.

When it comes to who wins the debate, it's tough. If the question is "Who utilized their feet better", it's easily Pernell. If it is "who's footwork was least flawed or who had the best technique with their feet", then that's Hopkins.

This question can be interpreted many ways and it's why I find the answer so intriguing. Pernell could do things with his feet that Bernard could only dream of, but Bernard didn't make as many mistakes.


----------



## Matty lll (Jul 29, 2012)

God damn, what an excellent thread. Both gentlemen know thre stuff inside and out. Bogotazo is my man though, loved his analysis back on ESB.


----------



## Sweethome_Bama (Jul 29, 2012)

Very good thread, gonna have to give my vote to Bogo, that bastard.


----------



## danuk (May 18, 2013)

All that reading this thread has done for me is prove how little i know/see about boxing. Great read fellas.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Sweethome_Bama said:


> Very good thread, gonna have to give my vote to Bogo, that bastard.


:bluesuit


----------



## poorface (Jun 14, 2013)

I'm inclined to cast my support behind Teeto on this one. While I agree with Bogotzao that deviations from the textbook need not doom a boxer's overall placement of effectiveness, I believe Teeto has made the more convincing argument for what constitutes superior footwork in this instance.


----------



## JDK (Jun 3, 2013)

Hopkins. Superior intelligence grounds him to use superb use of his feet.
Great read btw


----------



## Sweethome_Bama (Jul 29, 2012)

If Hopkins didn't routinely drop his head and billy goat to get on the inside I would respect his footwork more, but far too often he takes the cheap way in.


----------



## devon (Jun 5, 2013)

Going with Bogo simply on the fact that Whitaker did stuff with his footwork that was more advanced than Hopkins, even if he made some mistakes.


----------



## I am tyler (Dec 20, 2012)

Amazing stuff. I think I give the slight edge to Bogo here. Will probably change my mind if I read through it all again!


----------



## GPater (Sep 18, 2012)

What an interesting read.

One thing I would like to mention and I did think it went a bit uncontinued if you get me by both (not in a bad way though, as it is abit of an aside) is the footwork beng used to keep an opponent off-balance, Whittaker was absolutly unreal at this, when both guys were on about Whittakers use of angles inside, it actually completly offsets his opponents footwork, making it very hard for them to get set and throw and also allows Whittaker to controll where the next move will be and is able to walk them back very easily, despite them being stronger. I find this to be a really big part of footwork.

Sayin that though I agree with Teeto almost 100% here, but I think Bogo argued extremly well back and put out a very very good case (that although I never agreed with entirely I can see his logic and reasoning and cant fault it). Whatever this is its a razor thin SD ether way, with it being down to what the judges is favouring.

Its Calzaghe vs Hopkins at a higher level


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Stellar work from both guys. At the start I would've chosen Whitaker over Hopkins but now I've changed my mind so Teeto must be the winner for me. The part where he answered that the jab was Whitaker's main weapon allowing him to maintain distance and keep his opponent off balance sealed the deal for me, as I've been watching some Pernell lately and I definitly agree.

I wonder, though, if Whitaker was not too much of a complete package for this kind of thread. His reflexes, jab and precision were so good that it is hard to analyze his footwork alone.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

I voted for Teeto and Hopkins. The success Pea had given his tendencies is owed to his other great attributes. It is not something that can really be taught. Another poster said that he is teaching himself to cross his feet. Well, he 'd better have Pea's reflexes and overall mobility or he's going to look like a complete novice. Footwork is technical. And while I am not convinced that Nard was the best that ever did it, he certainly did it better than Pea.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

I thought Bogo produced the more compelling argument, and I tend to agree more with his line of thinking.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

Finally have some time to read this in full. You dudes are the best.












Batkilt said:


> He's more Mer-Man than anything.


Actually :lol:'d.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

I have to say that Hopkins has the best footwork I've seen personally,but Bogo is like a v-brother to me and has a far better grasp of the technical elements than I do.

This is a tough,tough pick for the judges. Two giants at the top of their game in this debate.


----------



## megavolt (Jun 5, 2013)

Great discussion. Teeto brings up some great points that swayed my opinion his way at times but I feel my thoughts are more in line with Bogotazo's.

The main argument really turned out to be a difference in definition, it helps if the moderator/op is more specific with these types of questions other wise many of the topics will boil down to "how the question is interpreted."

Footwork to me remains more of a qualitative rather than quantitative issue (e.g. handspeed) and for that it feels more appropriate that it get categorized under art over science.

Also the argument involving "doing more with less" vs "doing more with more" is a natural split argument that has merits to both sides. For sake of example, we can take two extremes: If a fighter can take a single step and negate his opponent's incoming offense regardless of immediate response, then said fighter has superior footwork as he is doing more with less effort, economically. On the other extreme, if that single step/reposition is the ONLY step the fighter can take, due to his limited/inhibited talent, then the other fighter's multi-step footwork would be superior due to the fact that he can accomplish more despite being less economical about it. This is why I agree with the net result being important in deciding such factors, albeit they do include extenuating factors.


Regarding specific foot movements (foot crossing, moving backwards etc) I would like to compare this to a chess game- there are instances in which in a losing position you will have the option to make the prudent play in which you will continue to give up pieces or you can opt for the risky play in which involves a move less conventional but more rewarding if you pull it off. In fact, sometimes the only way out IS to make the gambit play. Also note that things don't always have to be by the book; know that going by the book all the time will in turn make you more predictable. In short, if you have something tucked in your back pocket for clutch situations, and you use it to get out despite defying convention, that's noteworthy imo.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Immense thread. This is Ali vs. Tyson for fuck's sake.


----------



## SuckaPunch510 (May 22, 2013)

it's waaaaaaay too much thinking in this thread.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Jheez, what an unbelievable thread.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Do we get the award for best competition thread so far then?


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

:merchant look at all that feet crossing


----------



## Sweethome_Bama (Jul 29, 2012)

For the lulz


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Brownies said:


> Stellar work from both guys. At the start I would've chosen Whitaker over Hopkins but now I've changed my mind so Teeto must be the winner for me. The part where he answered that the jab was Whitaker's main weapon allowing him to maintain distance and keep his opponent off balance sealed the deal for me, as I've been watching some Pernell lately and I definitly agree.
> 
> *I wonder, though, if Whitaker was not too much of a complete package for this kind of thread. His reflexes, jab and precision were so good that it is hard to analyze his footwork alone.*


Yes, that is a huge part of what makes him so difficult to advocate. You could always just shift the "blame" towards any other one of his qualities. Which is why I made it a point to emphasize that Whitaker's footwork facilitated his jab and upper body movement.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> :merchant look at all that feet crossing


I find the Cuban school so interesting. They seem to have a perfect blend of teaching textbook boxing, while also encouraging fighters to improvise and do unorthodox moves such as Rigo's constant cross-footed shuffle. That doesn't even look like a habit, it looks like it was straight up taught.

Another thing I've found is that, while many fighters (outside slicksters mostly) will leave the jab out to measure or bait, and then let the right hand go right after it, I've seen Cuban fighters do the same thing with their rear hand; stick it out, then come back hard behind it with a lead hook. I've seen Abril and Rigo both do it really deliberately.


----------



## igor_otsky (Jul 24, 2012)

dammit guys! how do you think well outside of boxing when you're on a holiday or off to work? thinking how you answer each other's post? kudos to you guys.

I was greatly impressed at tittoes posts,but I give bogo the close W.

Bogo(e) SD Teeto(e)


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I find the Cuban school so interesting. They seem to have a perfect blend of teaching textbook boxing, while also encouraging fighters to improvise and do unorthodox moves such as Rigo's constant cross-footed shuffle. That doesn't even look like a habit, it looks like it was straight up taught.
> 
> Another thing I've found is that, while many fighters (outside slicksters mostly) will leave the jab out to measure or bait, and then let the right hand go right after it, I've seen Cuban fighters do the same thing with their rear hand; stick it out, then come back hard behind it with a lead hook. I've seen Abril and Rigo both do it really deliberately.


yeah I know what you mean, especially with that move Rigo will do when close to the ropes where he'll step forward one direction and then do a studder type step and go the opposite direction while pulling his head back.

And I've seen Gamboa do that same move you're talking about also with the sticking out the back hand


----------



## onourway (May 19, 2013)

Bogo wins for me.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Looks like I have a slight edge with the masses.


----------



## CARROTLAD (Jun 18, 2013)

Great read! These guys really know their stuff.
I'm giving the edge to Teeto here, who (in my opinion) was better able to make me see his point of view (regardless of my personal opinions).


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

I was watching Nadal today and I thought of this debate. In Fed's prime, he was regarded by most purists as having the best footwork in the game. This despite the fact that he was never as fast as Rafa, never got as many shots back, never did 360 pivots, etc. Fed's gift was the efficient nature of his movement. I do believe that there is a difference in pure mobility and actual footwork.


----------



## Iron Chin (Jul 31, 2013)

Giving the slight edge to Teeto in this one. Great thread to read through overall for sure though!


----------



## Doc (Jun 6, 2013)

Bogotazo and its not close.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Great arguments from both sides, I think I have to give the edge to my boy Bogo here.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Fantastic stuff from both. I mean, utterly brilliant stuff. That said, I think Bogo did a slightly better job of outlining the reason why Whitaker's footwork could be considered more effective, even if it wasn't as classically pure as X's. That means that Bogo JUST edges the debate, imo, by the narrowest of margins.


----------



## igor_otsky (Jul 24, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> Great arguments from both sides, I think I have to give the edge to my boy Bogo here.


Bogo TKO12 Teeto had he peppered his every posts with lots of gif,like he used to.


----------



## 941jeremy (Jun 12, 2013)

Wow... Is there a rematch clause for the loser. The two of you could make a book on footwork.


----------



## Capaedia (Jun 6, 2013)

Gotta go with Bogotazo. Possibly because he made the last post though. Wow.


----------



## tliang1000 (Jun 5, 2013)

Whitaker got better upperbody movement, but X got better footwork. Bhop glides around the ring and still have full focus on his counters while not getting trap against the ropes. i didn't read much of the debate but this was a pretty easy one.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Teeto wins. I'm more of a fan of Whitaker's but Teeto established and defined what footwork is, and showed a greater range of boxing knowledge. I don't think you can vote depending on 'what aligns to your own point of view', otherwise there'd be no point in having these debates. You need to consider that it's a debate so it's dependant on how well the participants frame their argument and demonstrate their knowledge. I'm still unsure how Bogo defines footwork, saying that it's effective in producing results in something that has as many variables as boxing does, doesn't isolate the variable of footwork, which is the topic of the debate.
Because of that I feel like the obvious winner here is Teeto.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

@Pabby @Lunny again can I get votes in. I'll just tag yous in the other threads!!!


----------



## uraharakisuke (May 16, 2013)

I side slightly with Teeto. It's hard to argue against Hopkins tbf.

Yeah.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Where do forum members get to vote?
I'm still not sure how this works.Is it 3 judges make up 60% and members make up the other 40%?


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Where do forum members get to vote?
> I'm still not sure how this works.Is it 3 judges make up 60% and members make up the other 40%?


I think you've already lost your one but it was the hardest one to call so far.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Lunny said:


> I think you've already lost your one but it was the hardest one to call so far.


Yeah,I did lose mate but I'm happy I made it competitive.
I just haven't seen any public voting on mine or any other threads,other than comments.Just wondered how it was working.
Because this is a tough,tough call here.Both performed brilliantly.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

@Lunny, please don't take much longer!


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

This fucking debate ruined the whole series. Who in the hell pit these two against each other in the first round?


----------



## r1p00pk (Jun 13, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> This fucking debate ruined the whole series. Who in the hell pit these two against each other in the first round?


i thought it was pretty fucking rediculous too, this would have been the true final match, instead if one of these guys went on they would of blown everyone else like nothing atsch for fucks sakes man


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> @Lunny, please don't take much longer!


Sorry mate. Result in this evening.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> This fucking debate ruined the whole series. Who in the hell pit these two against each other in the first round?


Drew out of a hat. Unfortunate but the only fair way to do it.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

My head hurts.


----------

