Short Zoom for Boxing

Hi Folks,

 

<p>Pardon the somewhat amateurish question but I'm used to the long

lenses and now I am in need of a wide zoom for boxing photos. I've

heard great things about the 12-24DX (I shoot Nikon, BTW) but I

can't help to think that it would be useless unless the fighters

were right up against your ropes. The 17-35 is brighter and offers

a bit more range. What are the rest of you folks shooting?

 

<p>Thanks,

 

<p>Sean

<br><a

href="http://www.stnphotography.com">www.stnphotography.com</a>

I think I have found my answer on Sharpshooter. <a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=8445">Here is a great boxing thread</a>.

Pardon me if I come across as an arrogant know-it-all in this response, but when it comes to boxing I'm not shy about admitting that I know whereof I speak.

 

Regarding that "great boxing thread"... there's a lot of bullshit on there, most of it from the fellow named Robert Hanashiro. He may be a pro but that still doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

 

His very first suggestion should be a frightening clue as to his cluelessness. He actually recommends modifying the ring ropes for the convenience of the photographer. This is so unbelievably reckless it defies belief. Any photographer who alters any part of the ring in any way without specific written consent from the boxing commission, as well as from the boxers themselves or their representatives, should be banned for life from photographing boxing in that state.

 

Later, he writes this regarding "the decisive moment":

 

"...Guys who tell you they "time" the boxers' punches by watching their shoulder for movement ... are bullshitting you. You can't reliably time a fighters punches by a twitch of a shoulder muscle..."

 

I don't think Hanashiro is bullshitting anyone here, but he is letting folks know that he's not a very good student of boxing.

 

I'm a former boxer. To this day I can tell within one round of watching a fight not only who will win, even if I've never seen either fighter before, but how they will win and why - and my family and friend's acknowledge that I am irritatingly correct about 90% of the time.

 

The times I'm wrong are when a boxer, with whom I'm unfamiliar, demonstrates some aspect that is almost never revealed in the first round, such as lack of stamina or a glass jaw. Likewise I know from experience (don't we all?) that Mike Tyson is a bad pony because he lacks stamina (both physical and mental) and has a glass jaw.

 

The fact is, you *do* anticipate a boxer's movements based on almost imperceptible physical cues such as shoulder twitches. And as con men and gamblers know, everybody has a "tell", a cue that gives away what they will do or plan to do next.

 

Feints are Boxing 101. Every decent boxer learns to use them and every decent boxer learns which to take note of and which to ignore. A shoulder twitch often *is* a feint. A boxer - and a good boxing observer and photographer - needs to discern these.

 

Also, a boxer's defensive strategy can tip you to his offensive strategy.

 

Example: In the middleweight title bout between Bernard Hopkins and Felix Trinidad, I spotted early on what Hopkins planned to do as the fight wore on. Hopkins has an excellent right hand but he rarely used it early in the fight. Why? Because Trinidad has an outstanding left hook, quick, hard and accurate. While Trinidad fired away with the hook, Hopkins concentrated mainly on left jabs. This gave the impression that Hopkins was fighting passively. The wrong impression.

 

The jab is a deceptive punch. Most folks don't regard it as a power punch. That is, most folks who haven't been on the receiving end of a strong jab, the type thrown by Gene Fullmer, Sonny Liston (who could break teeth and jaws and even knock people out with jabs), Muhammad Ali, George Foreman (see Sonny Liston), Larry Holmes, Roy Jones, Jr. (when he finally started throwing jabs), Bernard Hopkins and, now, Jermain Taylor. Properly thrown, the jab isn't just a token toss or a setup for a stronger punch. It produces bumps, bruises and cuts around the eyes, which alone can cause a fight to be stopped. And the cumulative damage can make the opponent careless. That's what happened to Trinidad - he didn't realize that with each head-snapping jab, his neck muscles were tiring, then his back, chest and supporting muscles that help a fighter withstand other punches.

 

Every time Trinidad threw a hook it was blocked by Hopkins' right hand, which Hopkins kept carefully planted against his own jaw for protection. As the fight progressed Trinidad became desperate, dropping his left lower and lower to cock it for harder and harder hooks. Finally, when he reached down to his knees for yet another hook, Hopkins threw a perfect straight right that ended the fight.

 

I could rattle off dozens more examples of how to spot the decisive moment. But don't listen to me. Listen to any HBO fight for which George Foreman was a commentator. Listen carefully because you'll have to ignore the drivel spouting by the brainless Jim Lampley, the real life equivalent to Tank MacNamara (okay, that's unfair - Tank has actually become more intelligent with experience while Lampley gets stupider with each telecast).

 

And be particularly cautious to disregard the mean-spirited Larry Merchant, whose ponderous drivel in The Ring magazine makes my writing seem succinct and brilliant by comparison. When not simply sitting around with one hand supporting his slack jaw and the other up his ass, Merchant takes great delight in employing what he probably believes is subtle wit to ridicule boxers during post-fight interviews. He takes the greatest pleasure in using verbose sarcasm against fighters still reeling from having just been knocked out, or against any boxer who seems less intelligent or less well educated than Merchant. Fortunately he meets his match in Oscar de la Hoya and Bernard Hopkins, who won't play Merchant's game, but it is infuriating to listen to cheap shots from an old man who gets meaner with each moment he stews in his own farts.

 

Nope, listen to George Foreman. He may come across as a bit comical, boxing's equivalent to John Madden, but he knows what he's talking about. Foreman isn't just a loveable lug. He knows the sport, how to spot boxers' strengths and weaknesses, and has the personal humility to use his own experiences to illustrate his points.

 

Specifically...

 

Foreman was the first commentator I heard discuss the chief weakness of Oscar de la Hoya: His inability to adapt to an opponent's changing tactics. Foreman also noted de la Hoya's greatest strength: When he stays on his toes, moving around - Foreman calls it de la Hoya's "crow hopping" - he's difficult to beat. Oscar de la Hoya is among the few fighters who hit as hard when on his toes as when his feet are planted. His current technique, as mistaught to him by Floyd Mayweather, Sr., is completely wrong for de la Hoya. He is not Floyd Mayweather, Jr., James Toney, Muhammad Ali or any of that style who can fight immobile with his back against the ropes.

 

Foreman has only one equal among current commentators, ESPN 2's Teddy Atlas, who, like Foreman, can bluster comically, but knows what the hell he's talking about and says so even more forcefully than Big George.

 

So if you want to learn to become a better boxing photographer, watch boxing matches on ESPN 2 and HBO *when* George Foreman is the commentator. Former heavyweight contender Scott LeDoux, an occasional guest commentator on ESPN 2, is another excellent observer. Pay attention to what they say. You'll learn a helluva lot more than you ever will from a photographer who thinks it's a good idea to wrap gaffer's tape around the ring ropes, or tries to convince you that the peak moment can't be anticipated.

Lex makes a lot of good points, including pointing out some of the BS on that thread. There is some great stuff at sportsshooters.com, but I don't think that thread is one of them. I shoot professional kickboxing and sell my photos to a variety of media and organizations.

<p>

In particular, the notion of modifying the ropes that Lex points out is an indicator that he (on that thread) has no idea what he is talking about. There isn't a boxing association around that would allow a photographer to just put tape on some ropes during a fight. Also, Lex is right when he talks about the ability to anticipate from body movements. I go to the boxing gyms regularly and shoot sparring because I've found it improves my ability to anticipate, especially if I can shoot fighters who will be in the ring.

<p>

Regarding lenses, you really want two cameras, one with a moderate short zoom, and one with either a longer zoom or a longer fixed lens. Assuming you are shooting at the curtain, you can capture most of the action with this combination. I shoot a Canon 1DMkII with a 24-70 zoom and a 10D with a fast 50 and 85. I get the shots I need this way. Lens speed can be an issue in the less professional venues. I've had to shoot everything at 1600 wide open in some places, but with great lighting, which you will get if the TV crews are there, it's easy to shoot at a lower ISO and with slightly slower lenses.<p>

 

The way to deal with the ropes is to go under. Sometimes when they're up against the ropes and you're too close to go under, it's easier just to leave the ropes in as long as they're not in the way of the faces and the action.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/satfights/images/f1.jpg"><br><i>Travis Johnson and Laurence Baker, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/satfights/images/b107.jpg"><br><i>Peter Kaljevic and Brian Schwartz, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</i></center>

Damned good photos, Jeff. Gotta respect anyone who can put his photos where his advice is. ;>

 

That reminds me ... tune up bouts for next Spring's Texas Golden Gloves should be starting right about now. For some reason they're called "smokers". I'm not sure of the etymology of the term but there may be a clue on this website:

 

http://www.nd.edu/~boxing/history.html

 

It discusses the early history of amateur boxing at Notre Dame and a fundraiser boxing event:

 

"...Fraternity Smokers at the Knights of Columbus raised a total of $301.25 for the Bengal Missions in Bangladesh."

 

My guess is that the "Fraternity Smokers" refers to a hookah, since many fraternal organizations such as the Freemasons, Shriners and others claim to trace their origins to the Knights Templar and other crusaders who picked up Middle Eastern influences, which appear as common motifs in Freemasonry and similar organizations. And it's likely the "Fraternity Smokers" bit was dropped due to the association of hookahs with hashish.

We have smokers here all the time. They are generally put on by the gyms where the boxers train, and they give the boxers who aren't ready for the big fights to go out and show their stuff. The gyms sell out when they have the smokers.

Some of the smokers I participated in were outdoors in parking lots. Those were my least favorite. Besides the usual stuff you'd try to jockey for position with your opponent to get the sun at your back and in his eyes.

 

In the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex smokers tend to be a seasonal thing, starting in the late summer and running through the springtime regional and state Golden Gloves tournaments.

 

Since it's not a yearround thing I've always been surprised at how Texas consistently churns out top notch amateur and professional boxers. I know that some amateur boxers train yearround, but it's not easy. Some of the main gyms aren't open during the summer. My brother and I used to train in the barn, with a stuffed duffel bag set up as a heavyweight, and sparred in the yard where the ground was fairly soft so it resembled the feel of a ring mat.