A Thought on Klitschko-Brock
I was thinking about the upcoming Klitschko-Brock IBF heavyweight title bout. Actually, my thoughts were more on Brock than Klitschko. The thing I kept going over was, if you're Brock's trainer, Tom Yankello, how do you approach Brock and prepare him for the fight. IF Yankello is honest with himself, he knows Calvin doesn't really do anything better than Wladimir. On top of that, this is Brock's first title fight. Klitschko's already experienced the best and worst a fighter can fighting in a heavyweight title bout.
I'm sure, Emmanuel Steward, Klitschko's trainer, is aware Brock doesn't do any one thing spectacular. Taking it a step further, the only thing Steward doesn't know about Brock as a fighter is, how good his chin is, and how tough and determined he is mentally. Physically, Wladimir is the more complete and formidable fighter. Having watched Emmanuel Steward for years, I think he'll embed it into Wladimir's head that he can only lose this fight if he's careless and gives it away.
With Brock being a little bit of a mystery, he'll instruct Wladimir to be smart early and see what Brock has, or how he wants to fight. Which brings me back to Yankello. If he's honest with himself, he has to go in with the thought his fighter is not going to get any benefit of the doubt in the scoring. Translation, his fighter has to stop Klitschko to guarantee they leave the ring with the title. So when all is said and done, Brock's task is no different than any other fighter that doesn't have any one thing in his arsenal to worry Wlad about, who fights him. That is, hurt him early and take his confidence. Make him think safety first and concentrate on not getting tug with anything big. If Brock can do that, he could turn the table on Klitschko. Seeing that he can hurt Klitschko, his confidence will soar. In the process it will make him harder to hurt or deter because he'll start to believe he can't lose, instead of questioning if he can win. At the end of the day, without hurting or shaking Klitschko's confidence early, he probably won't win the fight.
Sounds easy right? Not quite. The problem for Yankello is, Brock probably thinks he can out box Wlad, or out fight him. Making it that much tougher for him to instruct Brock that he has to enter the Lion's den early and with purpose, if he hopes to win. Something that's very easy to say, but hard to convince a fighter to do, if he doesn't believe it's his only chance or doesn't have to.
Unless Tom Yankello knows something that I haven't been close enough to pick up, he's got his work cut out for him. Without knowing Calvin Brock, it would appear that Yankello has to be honest with his fighter, without being too honest.
posted by Frank Lotierzo @ 9:29 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Some judicious early brawling by Brock could be his best bet to crack Klitschko's game. The comparison is ludicrously generous to both Brock and Klitschko, but I've been reading recently about the first Greb-Tunney bout, in which Greb came out and set the pace right from the outset by butting Tunney and hitting him with a variety of fair and foul blows, breaking his nose and making a mess of him. Tunney never did get into any kind of rhythm, and Greb beat him without mercy the rest of the way, his only clear win vs. Tunney. As I said, Klitschko is no Tunney, and Brock is so emphatically not Greb as to make the comparison a joke, but the point is that the Klitschko brothers have always seemed susceptible to being rattled--whether by a legitimate blow or a foul one.
The question, as Frank and Charles so persuasively lay it out, is whether the dutiful, diligent Brock has it in him to do what has to be done--some combination of start fast, start dirty, and/or take a big risk early in order to get Klitschko's attention. Actually, it's sort of an interesting problem, considering that it's not a very interesting-looking fight. If he comes out and fights his way, does what he does best, and gives it his all and all the rest of the things that 10,000 coaches tell several million jocks to do every day, he's very probably going to lose. But if he comes out stupid, or at least what would normally be considered stupid, he has a better chance to win.
This raises again an idea we've knocked around before: is there such a thing as brawling wisely? I think that there is, and that the notion of a smart fighter should be extended from expert boxers to judicious brawlers, or fighters who chose to brawl when necessary. Brock's going to lose, probably, if he just fights a good, solid, fundamentally sound fight. But if he mixes in a few well chosen episodes of stupidity, he could win this thing.
"Brawling wisely" may simply mean choosing to brawl at a specific, chosen time -- when it's not expected, or before the opponent has had the opportunity to settle himself into the fight. Put Klitschko and Brock in opposite corners and tell them, "Okay, fellas, now it's time to brawl," and it's likely that Klitschko batters Brock into a jello. But put them in opposite corners and simply sound a bell and it's conceivable that Klitschko comes out expecting that Brock, being a reasonable fellow, will take some time to gauge his opponent's strength and resolve, but -- suddenly faced with a Brock who is willing to, uncharacteristically, carry the fight right into the big guy's front yard -- finds himself back on his heels and suddenly _thinking_ about what might happen if he gets tagged. As Carlo puts it, "if he comes out stupid, or at least what would normally be considered stupid, he has a better chance to win."
The question, as Frank makes clear, is whether Yankello can get Brock to that point.
Fighting dirty is a skill, in other words, and Brock shows little promise in that area. Who's a good dirty fighter these days?
Holyfield, of course, was effectively dirty in his day--not only encouraging Tyson to bug out, but busting up Ruiz with his elbow, etc. He held up the Bible while kicking people in the balls, and got away with it.
I'd rank Andrew Golota as an ineffective dirty fighter, or rather as a guy who had a lot of potential as a dirty fighter (he bit Samson Po'uha and knocked Dannell Nicholson for a loop with his head and won both fights by TKO) and never refined it, just as he had a lot of potential as a fighter in general and pissed it all away. There was a moment in his second fight with Bowe when he hit Bowe with a fairly complicated combination along the ropes and threw in a headbutt for good measure. It was actually a fairly impressive piece of hand-eye-head coordination. But Golota had no control of his gift in this area, or in any other, and he never amounted to much as a dirty fighter.
I'd rank Tyson as an outright failure as a dirty fighter. If you fight dirty just to get yourself thrown out of the ring, you're missing the point.
Tyson was a blatantly dirty fighter. I've never seen another heavyweight hit low, on the break, or at the bell as much as he did. Did I mention forearms and elbows? And that's when he was still undefeated. After he lost, he turned to it as a safety net insuring himself a way out, instead of as a form of intimidation.
As far as Brock, getting ugly is not a part of his make up. Which is a shame because Klitschko is vulnerable to those type tactics. Wladimir is an athlete much more than a fighter, breaking the rules is something he probably can't comprehend.
Keep in mind, it's easy for us to profess what Brock should do. We all see that Brock's not likely to get a fair shake in the scoring, so winning a decision is a reach. And that's assuming he was even good enough to physically beat Klitschko over the course of 12-rounds.
We know he has to exploit Klitschko's lack of ruggedness and durability.
The thing that makes this a high wire act for Yankello, as I see it, is because even though he probably should, he won't outright say to Calvin, "you're not going to win by decision. If you don't jump on him and hurt him early, you won't beat him." And the reason he won't say that is because he doesn't want to risk losing him if Calvin does try to rough him up and get him out early in the fight, but is unsuccessful. If that happens, he may lose his fighter who'll accept that he didn't do what he had to do and accept that he can't win.
If I were Tom Yankello, I would come from the angle that suggest, "to insure you win this fight, if you don't do anything else that we've worked on, the one thing you must do, is make him react to you. If you wait and try to react to him, you'll be fighting his fight and making it easier for him.
The best strategy for Brock in the simplest term, is not to fight out of control, but to be assertive and make Klitschko react to what he's doing, instead of the opposite. And if he's good enough to do it, although there's nothing we've seen to suggest it, try and incorporate a little Greb, with a touch of Duran and Holyfield into his game.
I agree, Tyson and Golota fouled in order to keep from getting stopped or losing. Without a doubt, they used it in the ugliest form possible.
In the last 40 years, Monzon, Hopkins, Holyfield, Holmes and Pedroza incorporated fouling into their arsenal to win fights better than any other fighters. And with the exception of Pedroza, you had to watch the others very close to pick up just how cunning and good they really were at it.
Today, fighters worry more about getting labeled with the rap of being a dirty fighter, than those who fought during Zivic's era and before.
It's funny, Brock being a heavyweight, actually has a better chance to beat Klitschko by taking a shot at him early, then he would in any other division. It's just more risky.
However, a fighter must do what he can to give himself the best chance to win. Winning is the only thing that matters.
This may come as a surprise to some, but I respect Bryant Brannon so much for the way he fought Roy Jones. Brannon understood, he had no chance in the world to out-box or out think Jones. Realizing he couldn't win by decision, he took his only chance at winning. Figuring, I'd rather lose badly, giving myself the best shot I had to win, instead of going the distance, just to say I did, without ever giving myself a chance at winning.
In reality, the way Brannon fought Jones, (going right at him and trying to make it a street fight) was smart, if wining was more important than surviving and saving face. Bryant Brannon came closer to beating Jones than a lot of the fighters did who went the distance with him. He took his only shot, they really didn't.
If they believed after the first couple rounds that they had a chance to win without turning the thing into a street fight, they lied to themselves. In truth, they probably accepted they were going to lose, but saw not getting stopped as an accomplishment.
Personally, I think more of Brannon by trying and getting stopped, then if he went the distance knowing there's no chance to win.
Brannon's mindset was, if I don't take a chance, I don't sdtand a chance. He was completely honest with himself and knew exactly what he was doing.
Robert Allen did the same thing to Hopkins that Brannon did to Jones, no?
Sandy Saddler would have to go down as an all-time great dirty fighter, wouldn't he?
Ali's grabbing Frazier behind the head in their second fight was an excellent display of fouling effectively.
Gerry Cooney was a flop as a dirty fighter. The Holmes low blows were the opposite of artistic.
Post a Comment
<< Home