reservoirdogs
Superstar
I think they are good to different things, if you do a 1-2-1 or 2-1-2 like the likes of Kovalev or Pac do it's good to track down opponents who backs out in a straight line, a 1-2-3 is good when they don't move out of range cause then you can easily overreach and fall short with the 3 leaving yourself open. Probably the opponent won't be in a position to fire back either when backing down but a 1-2-1 or 2-1-2 can track him down.i have to be honest i never liked kovalev's 1-2-1. one of the characteristics of american boxing, if you can say there is such thing, and i think you probably can, is the 1-2-3. whats the difference? a 1-2-1 everything is coming up the middle. a 1-2-3 the punches come up the middle, they come around the side, up, down, you get a lot more options. you can hit a guy everywhere.
i mean it lets you connect everywhere. thats the first combination you learn in an american boxing gym. get real good at throwing it, and you can take a guy apart like a wristwatch. gerald mcclellan got all his body shot knockouts with that clean up hook coming off a 1-2-3. the kovalev 1-2-1, to me, is gimmicky. roy jones says, might have been in one of the fights he had with andre ward, that he just wished kovalev would come back with the hook sometimes. i thought that was a pretty american thing for him to say.
I'm by no means any close to a pro boxer but I always felt it's hard to accuratley do the 1-2-3 on alive target as the range of the 2 is long while the 3 is mid-close, pretty hard to find the good range even wit the left hand being naturally closer to the opponent than the right if you are orthodox. So I think both are good, tried and tested just for different situations.
....
