Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

[McGrain]

In your opinion?

[dragosuhail]

i reckon the best champs have a bit of everything. or more appropriately they have above average assets in each department (speed, power, stamina etc.) and usuall excel in one or two departments.

if you had to pick technical skill you MUST have something else in the kit bag. power, or speed, or stamina.

if you pick power puncher, you gotta have defensive skils, or solid chin etc.

i've never seen a great fighter have only one quality... even technically perfect fighters

[fists of fury]

I think at lighter weights technique is more important, but at heavyweight power and (for example) a good chin takes you a long way. A heavyweight with no punch is usually not much of a success.

If you look at Buster Mathis jnr and David Tua, I'd say Mathis' pure technique was better but Tua was more successful overall, mostly owing to a big punch.

[achillesthegreat]

YES!

Someone with talent (speed and power) can not beat someone technically better than themself UNLESS they too are technically good.

Probably only heavyweight is an exception because the guys there aren't really the same size. So a guy can be really good but then get hit by a man 50 pounds heavier than himself.

[Titan1]

In some ways, it is.For example, Dokes had decent power, great speed, but his technique was flawed in various ways.

[Stonehands89]

Technique is the nuts and bolts of the sweet science.
Those who combine sound technique with talent can excel.
Those who disregard technique do so at their own risk.

[rekcutnevets]

I don't think you can make a rule here. It is going to depend on the fighter, and what the fighter does to be effective.

I think that the people who say heavyweights are able to get away with less technique, than that of other divisions, are probably correct.

George Foreman is an example of being able to win without great technique. George knew how to throw a jab, but he was normally wild with practically everything. He knocked out Adilson Rodriguez with a decently thrown, 4 punch combo, but look at his technique with Cooney. Foreman's strength, chin, and determination made him excel in spite of his technical flaws.

Foreman is just one example.

You can make the argument that they are equally important using the Pacquiao vs. Marquez fight as an example. A lot of people thought Marquez won the larger number of rounds, but still thought Manny could have won the fight. It ended in a draw. Marquez came close to winning with technique, Pacquiao came close to winning with speed and power. Manny has improved his technique significantly since, so a rematch will not give us another go at it.

[prime]

Given a choice, perhaps technique has an edge over power.

Some fighters get by on mostly technique, like Willie Pep and Gene Tunney, although technique means you have done the basics over and over and to me that means your speed and precision will not be too shabby.

Others try to get by on power, but dozens of men never went beyond journeyman status (Bob Satterfield, Luis Firpo, Jeff Merritt, to name just 3 in a long list that includes a couple of football players) because they never learned to develop technical skills.

Ali over Foreman and Frazier and Liston and Shavers, Holmes over Mercer, Leonard over Duran, Pep over Saddler, Tunney over Dempsey, are examples of how a technician can beat a strong man. Of course, the examples can go the other way, and that is part of the fascination with boxing: knowledge vs. power; but technique has to make a difference, otherwise any muscle head could climb into the ring and wreak havoc.

Today's behemoth heavies are more successful than their past counterparts because many of them have better skills to go with the size and power.

[ThinBlack]

Yes, see Watts-Davis Jr.

[Bogotazo]

Technique. There are situations where athletic ability and instincts may prevail of course, but I think the knowledge to do something with maximum efficiency and the least amount of harmful risk is much more valuable.

I think of a solid technical base as a tool-kit. You can solve a deadly right hand with proper lateral movement; you can solve a stiff aggressor with a jab; you can't guarantee you'll solve anything just by throwing hard and/or fast once that doesn't work the first time.

[mcvey]

In your opinion?
Speed and power can negate any amount of technical perfection.
" It only takes one punch",as a despairing Jim Corbett shouted to a bloody , but unbowed Jim Jeffries.
In truth, I don't know the answer,and I suspect there is not a definitive one.

[kenmore]

Technique is the nuts and bolts of the sweet science.
Those who combine sound technique with talent can excel.
Those who disregard technique do so at their own risk.

But can superior technique compensate for relative inferiority in speed and athleticism? It's an intriguing question.

I've heard that a slower boxer who has superb, intuitive grasp of timing can actually beat a faster guy (i.e., one who has quicker hands) to the punch. A fairly well known boxing coach told me this...that it's not so much hand speed as timing that determines who connects first.

[devon]

It depends Roy Jones Jr did not have good technique but his athleticism made up for that.

[orriray59]

Hopkins is a prime example of this.

[Body Head]

it depends look at Jones in his prime.

[Stonehands89]

But can superior technique compensate for relative inferiority in speed and athleticism? It's an intriguing question.

I've heard that a slower boxer who has superb, intuitive grasp of timing can actually beat a faster guy (i.e., one who has quicker hands) to the punch. A fairly well known boxing coach told me this...that it's not so much hand speed as timing that determines who connects first.
Boxing is about skills first, not talent. Speed, for example, is the greatest gift a fighter can have but it can be overcome by several things found in the boxer's figurative tool box. That ain't a theory.

Everyone brings up Ali and Jones and Hamed as examples to somehow prove that talent is better than mastery of the fundamentals, but all three of them were exceptional talents. They are exceptions that prove the rule. What beat them? Superior athletes? No, sound strategy and fundamentals.

The vast majority of natual talent do not come back to the gym after a few sparring sessions. Once they realize that fast hands and good reflexes won't save them from concussions, they go back to basketball courts.

[McGrain]

Yes, see Watts-Davis Jr.

You are making me fucking crazy now, kid.

[Liechhardt]

Yes. Look at Roy Jones. You lose your speed you don't lose your style.

[red cobra]

Yes, see Watts-Davis Jr.
very good example.:good

[red cobra]

You are making me fucking crazy now, kid.
But Mcgrain...this is a very good call on how a solid, technically adept pro beats a highly talented speedster who was reckoned to make the Scot a victim and garner his first of many titles.

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

Red, I think McGrain is mad with ThinBlack because he is bumping inumerous threads that are like 4, 5 years ago, all day, every day...:lol:

This thread is from fucking 2007!
But it is a very good thread though....

[ripcity]

If we are talking about one fight I'd go with Speed/Power. Roy Jones Jr. May be the best head to head/prime vs. prime boxer ever. What did he have going for himself? Speed and power.

If we are talking about a career. I'd rather have Technical Perfection. Here we see Jones weakness. When his speed goes. He's not anywhere as good as he was when he had it.

The truly great ones have both. There are plenty of guys with all the physical gifts who never come close to being what they could have been in the ring. My theory is that being naturaly gifted leads to beliving that you only need to reliy on these gifts and less time is spent in preperation. This goes for everything not just boxing. Whenn you combine a good amount of talent with hard work you get the truly greats.
I belive that Jones has way more talent than Floyd Mayweather Jr. However, Mayweather has had the better career. I'm not saying jones is a slacker, but he never really mastered the basics. Mayweather is known for his training. While Mayweather is extremely talented that talent alone dose not explaine his secuess.
I think the one of the best arguments for Technical Perfection is Juan Manuel Marquez. He's nearly as naturaly gifted as the rest of today's top boxers. However, he's pretty close to being Techanay perfect as a counter puncher as you can get. He's 38 years old and the best lightweight in the world. Outside of Timothy Bradley, I'd favor him over anyone at light welterweight as well.

[red cobra]

Red, I think McGrain is mad with ThinBlack because he is bumping inumerous threads that are like 4, 5 years ago, all day, every day...:lol:

This thread is from fucking 2007!
But it is a very good thread though....
:goodyou're right...

[salty trunks]

Not always. Speed is the single most important factor in boxing. It can offset technique and power. Technical perfection can also offset speed and power but if I had to choose between the two Im taking speed. For example look what Roy Jones was able to do for so long against a laundry list of solid technicians. The way he made James Toney look should be your clue.

[salty trunks]

Boxing is about skills first, not talent. Speed, for example, is the greatest gift a fighter can have but it can be overcome by several things found in the boxer's figurative tool box. That ain't a theory.

Everyone brings up Ali and Jones and Hamed as examples to somehow prove that talent is better than mastery of the fundamentals, but all three of them were exceptional talents. They are exceptions that prove the rule. What beat them? Superior athletes? No, sound strategy and fundamentals.

The vast majority of natual talent do not come back to the gym after a few sparring sessions. Once they realize that fast hands and good reflexes won't save them from concussions, they go back to basketball courts.

No not really. Roy Jones was not technically a great fighter but his speed against a guy like James Toney for example completely offset any strategy or fundamentals he had. Reggie Johnson was also a very good boxer and was completely befuddled.
Mike Tyson is another good example. A short stocky pressure fighter who should have been offset by the many good tall boxers he faced but his speed, not so much his power is what allowed him to keep guys in check. He was so fast and hard to hit he was hitting guys before they could set and react.

Speed is the top of the mountain everything else falls in behind it.

[PowerPuncher]

You need a combination of everything. Even Willie Pep got bulldozed by a much inferior technician because Saddler was much stronger than him. Archie Moore a great technician got treated like a speed ball by the faster Patterson

[Stonehands89]

No not really. Roy Jones was not technically a great fighter but his speed against a guy like James Toney for example completely offset any strategy or fundamentals he had. Reggie Johnson was also a very good boxer and was completely befuddled.
Mike Tyson is another good example. A short stocky pressure fighter who should have been offset by the many good tall boxers he faced but his speed, not so much his power is what allowed him to keep guys in check. He was so fast and hard to hit he was hitting guys before they could set and react.

Speed is the top of the mountain everything else falls in behind it.
In terms of the best athletic talent, speed is at the top. But it cannot be counted on to defeat technique by itself. Anyone who has spent more than two weeks in a gym should know that.

And let's not get into throwing out examples because I can give you a hundred where technicians eat speedsters.

Jones vs. anyone before Tarver II proves nothing at all. Again, he is an exception that proves the rule, and he is not representative of speed guys. As for Tyson, speed alone is not what got him to the heights. It was his style, which was rooted in very solid fundamentals and a keen understanding of how to fight bigger and taller heavyweights. Speed was the perfect complement, but if he just had fast and heavy hands it wouldn't have made the difference.

[Stonehands89]

You need a combination of everything. Even Willie Pep got bulldozed by a much inferior technician because Saddler was much stronger than him. Archie Moore a great technician got treated like a speed ball by the faster Patterson
Saddler was highly skilled.

Patterson was highly skilled.

If you had to choose between the two, would you rather have fast hands and bum technique, or slow hands and sound technique?

[McGrain]

One thing. I think Jones was more technically skilled than he is generally given credit for. For example he punches very correctly more often than he does something utterly bizarre (like KO someone with a left hook with all the torque coming from the opposite side, or something). It's true that he didn't defend himself in the usual way and that he used speed to defend himself. That is fair to say. But I would like to point out that at the same time as his speed started to desert him, so did his legs. The damage was mostly done in terms of his performance because he went to the ropes and stood there covered up (With a pretty decent technical guard!) and let the likes of Glen Johnson batter him.

I'm not holding him as a paradigm example of technical boxing of course, i'm just saying that I think the argument at both ends of his career gets highly exaggerated. He fought with more "correctly" than generally given credit for early in his career. Here entering his absolute prime against Tate for example, he fights well from a technical perspective, if not flawlessly:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And later in his career his failings were about more than his beginning to lack speed and his technical shortcomings being exposed. Bad legs are the toughest thing to cover up with speed just as they are the toughest thing to cover up with technical acumen, though the later is obviously easier than the former.

[MagnaNasakki]

I'd rather be good, personally.

Super speed is very difficult to counter, but there is always a decent chance even the fastest guy makes mistakes an amazing technician can capitalize on.

I acknowledge fast guys are exceptionally tough to be, but I'd rather fight a perfect fight, myself.

Juan Manuel Marquez is a perfect example. Arguably beat Manny Pacquiao three times, and he's an inferior athlete in every way. Why did he have such stunning success? Manny is so dependent on his speed, he makes a ton of mistakes that a fighter as good as Marquez can capitalize on.

In summary, I believe the flaw in speed is that a boxer can become reliant on it, and his attention and focus can slip. A technician is more or less safe in most situations. Also, they rarely ever have the massive falling off at the end of their careers that leads to all the brain damage.

A lot of people will point to certain fights where speedsters eat technicians, but in all these examples, the speedy man mentioned is actually a fine technical boxer in his own right.

[MagnaNasakki]

One thing. I think Jones was more technically skilled than he is generally given credit for. For example he punches very correctly more often than he does something utterly bizarre (like KO someone with a left hook with all the torque coming from the opposite side, or something). It's true that he didn't defend himself in the usual way and that he used speed to defend himself. That is fair to say. But I would like to point out that at the same time as his speed started to desert him, so did his legs. The damage was mostly done in terms of his performance because he went to the ropes and stood there covered up (With a pretty decent technical guard!) and let the likes of Glen Johnson batter him.

I'm not holding him as a paradigm example of technical boxing of course, i'm just saying that I think the argument at both ends of his career gets highly exaggerated. He fought with more "correctly" than generally given credit for early in his career. Here entering his absolute prime against Tate for example, he fights well from a technical perspective, if not flawlessly:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And later in his career his failings were about more than his beginning to lack speed and his technical shortcomings being exposed. Bad legs are the toughest thing to cover up with speed just as they are the toughest thing to cover up with technical acumen, though the later is obviously easier than the former.

I agree with this post.

I think the biggest thing Roy Jones did wrong in his prime that started getting him in huge trouble later was back straight up. He had such amazing legs in his prime it didn't matter how he moved, man could clear 8 feet in a second, and hit you three times while he did so.

Now, its almost easy to bully Roy around because he'll go straight back to the ropes. Watching a smaller Calzaghe bully him like he was a boy fighting a man is an incredibly illuminating lesson of what Roy's footwork without his amazing legs and explosiveness is: Bum. He still throws great combos, he's still accurate, still has a great high guard, but because he can be bulled around and hit, he can be stopped.

Even the Green fight. The second Green decided to actually launch a serious attack, he backed Roy right up and cracked him.

Roy is an underrated technician, but even his technique was rooted in his talent. I would never, ever, ever teach a young fighter to fight like Roy Jones.

[lora]

It's about balance as power says.especially as i think technical perfection is more accurately "fighter with solid ability to deploy all the generally perceived textbook fundamentals" where this discussion is conerned

How many greats can you name who weren't out of the ordinary for speed, power, general physical ability etc.

At the same time how many were genuinely shite technicians.Just Marciano and Moon;)

but yeah, thinblack has been relentlessly trolling classic for months now, he's more machine than man.

[salty trunks]

In terms of the best athletic talent, speed is at the top. But it cannot be counted on to defeat technique by itself. Anyone who has spent more than two weeks in a gym should know that.

And let's not get into throwing out examples because I can give you a hundred where technicians eat speedsters.

Jones vs. anyone before Tarver II proves nothing at all. Again, he is an exception that proves the rule, and he is not representative of speed guys. As for Tyson, speed alone is not what got him to the heights. It was his style, which was rooted in very solid fundamentals and a keen understanding of how to fight bigger and taller heavyweights. Speed was the perfect complement, but if he just had fast and heavy hands it wouldn't have made the difference.

Well Ive spent decades in gyms working with fighters and Ive witnessed this kind of thing first hand. Ive seen kids with no experience walk in the gym who were speed demons and Ive put them in sparring with guys quicker than anyone else and seen them excel quicker than anyone else because they dont have to be as advanced as most fighters technically to do well. Speed offsets mistakes because its harder for a fighter to take advantage of them no matter how technically perfect they were.

Roy Jones is the perfect example. He always had those shortcomings of leaving himself open in spots and making moves that seemed so vulnerable, its just noone could even guess right when they tried to time him coming in. He wasnt a master technician but he used his speed of foot, feints, and power shots to keep his opponents off balance. All that stops when the target becomes easier to pull the trigger on. I dont really understand the Tarver II analogy this was a different fighter who no longer had that blazing speed or quickness.

Same as Tyson. He was always moving into the line of fire and his speed of foot and upper body movement allowed him to avoid punishment and defend himself better. Handspeed and power were only a compliment to his quickness because Tyson had to MOVE into range to land his shots and his range was a hell of a lot closer than most heavyweights of the time.

Look at Amir Kahn hes not a very good technician pretty far from being a complete fighter but his speed allows him to be champion and beat heavy handed guys with good skills.

[SJS19]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Case and point gentleman.

Without going into too much detail, I'd say that having an abundance of one, can go some way to compensating for a deficiancy in the other.

[salty trunks]

Your example proves speed beats tehnique. Pac is probably as far away from a technician as Marquez is from being a speedster yet he still had the edge in three fights.

[Bill Butcher]

Yes, without question.

[Vockerman]

There is a very old saying in boxing...

And within certain limits I do believe it is true - I'm sure someone can cherry pick examples to the contrary, so I'm just sharing what I've heard many times over the years.


Speed overcomes power and technique overcomes speed...

[Stonehands89]

Well Ive spent decades in gyms working with fighters and Ive witnessed this kind of thing first hand. Ive seen kids with no experience walk in the gym who were speed demons and Ive put them in sparring with guys quicker than anyone else and seen them excel quicker than anyone else because they dont have to be as advanced as most fighters technically to do well. Speed offsets mistakes because its harder for a fighter to take advantage of them no matter how technically perfect they were.
I'm not sure you are understanding my point. No one is dismissing the advantages that speed brings. What I am saying is that it is not more important than advanced technique. It is a great supplement, but it does not replace the craft. Do you agree with that or not?

I'm not trying to get out of line by saying this, but if speedy guys could come off the street, walk into that gym you frequented and whip guys who had been applying their craft for years, then the problem can only be that the gym had bum trainers.

Roy Jones is the perfect example. He always had those shortcomings of leaving himself open in spots and making moves that seemed so vulnerable, its just noone could even guess right when they tried to time him coming in. He wasnt a master technician but he used his speed of foot, feints, and power shots to keep his opponents off balance. All that stops when the target becomes easier to pull the trigger on. I dont really understand the Tarver II analogy this was a different fighter who no longer had that blazing speed or quickness.

Same as Tyson. He was always moving into the line of fire and his speed of foot and upper body movement allowed him to avoid punishment and defend himself better. Handspeed and power were only a compliment to his quickness because Tyson had to MOVE into range to land his shots and his range was a hell of a lot closer than most heavyweights of the time.

Look at Amir Kahn hes not a very good technician pretty far from being a complete fighter but his speed allows him to be champion and beat heavy handed guys with good skills.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Jones. Are you reading my posts?

Tyson's handspeed "was only a complement to his quickness"--?

Again, Tyson was a well-trained machine with exceptional fundamentals. He knew how to slip shots and close the distance, he understood angles, counterpunching, defense, etc. His speed and power complimented that foundation.

The best foundation is fundamentals. Any trainer who doesn't see that should have their license revoked. Am I wrong?

[Stonehands89]

Your example proves speed beats tehnique. Pac is probably as far away from a technician as Marquez is from being a speedster yet he still had the edge in three fights.
I, and legions of other observers on this forum and elsewhere, have Marquez up in the series 2-1.

Do you believe that Pacquiao won their third engagement?

[Nightcrawler]

I, and legions of other observers on this forum and elsewhere, have Marquez up in the series 2-1.

Do you believe that Pacquiao won their third engagement?

regardless of where you land, the marquez/pac analogy show that the very elite of technique and speed respectively can be almost perfectly matched and cancel each other out. at the very upper echelon, their may not be much difference between the two traits once mastered

[MagnaNasakki]

regardless of where you land, the marquez/pac analogy show that the very elite of technique and speed respectively can be almost perfectly matched and cancel each other out. at the very upper echelon, their may not be much difference between the two traits once mastered

Probably true. Excellent skill and above average speed, and excellent speed and above average skill makes for a pretty much even matchup.

[Stonehands89]

regardless of where you land, the marquez/pac analogy show that the very elite of technique and speed respectively can be almost perfectly matched and cancel each other out. at the very upper echelon, their may not be much difference between the two traits once mastered
This statement really shines a light on the difficulty of quantifying the issue.

I would not say that Pacquiao is a pure athlete. He is technically pretty damn good. I think that he is good enough to be termed a stylist at times. And Roach is not about to slack on technique and strategy and have him rely on athleticism.

Barrera-Hamed is among the best examples in my book. Barrera is a purer technician, Hamed the purer athlete.

Also, I can't see how one would "master" natural talent.

[light-welter]

Technique is more important for me, Floyd's technique is superior to anyone in the sport today, and I think in general there has been a decline in technique and "students of the sport" when you look at the last few years (many exceptions obviously).

[MagnaNasakki]

This statement really shines a light on the difficulty of quantifying the issue.

I would not say that Pacquiao is a pure athlete. He is technically pretty damn good. I think that he is good enough to be termed a stylist at times. And Roach is not about to slack on technique and strategy and have him rely on athleticism.

Barrera-Hamed is among the best examples in my book. Barrera is a purer technician, Hamed the purer athlete.

Also, I can't see how one would "master" natural talent.

Its a good point. Pacquaio makes errors that Marquez doesn't(Excellent video on it in the feint thread), but he's damn good in his own right.

Its his talent that covers those errors and allows him to land shots and sustain offense. If he didn't have it, Marquez would master him easily.

[dillinja]

I think speed and power are more important as natural traits as you can learn technique to some degree but you can;t actually improve your natural power and speed just improve your technique.

[MagnaNasakki]

I think speed and power are more important as natural traits as you can learn technique to some degree but you can;t actually improve your natural power and speed just improve your technique.

Thats not quite true. A ton of power comes from technique, and it can be improved.

Speed can too, to a certain degree.

But I see what your saying. Its certainly harder to retrain and rebuild your body in an athletic sense then to tighten your jab and your punch selection up. A lot harder.

[dillinja]

Thats not quite true. A ton of power comes from technique, and it can be improved.

Speed can too, to a certain degree.

But I see what your saying. Its certainly harder to retrain and rebuild your body in an athletic sense then to tighten your jab and your punch selection up. A lot harder.

Yeah i could have worded it abit better, a slow person will never be fast, a person with a weak punch will never be a power puncher however a person with poor technique could still become a technical expert to a degree.

[Stonehands89]

One thing. I think Jones was more technically skilled than he is generally given credit for. For example he punches very correctly more often than he does something utterly bizarre (like KO someone with a left hook with all the torque coming from the opposite side, or something). It's true that he didn't defend himself in the usual way and that he used speed to defend himself. That is fair to say. But I would like to point out that at the same time as his speed started to desert him, so did his legs. The damage was mostly done in terms of his performance because he went to the ropes and stood there covered up (With a pretty decent technical guard!) and let the likes of Glen Johnson batter him.

I'm not holding him as a paradigm example of technical boxing of course, i'm just saying that I think the argument at both ends of his career gets highly exaggerated. He fought with more "correctly" than generally given credit for early in his career. Here entering his absolute prime against Tate for example, he fights well from a technical perspective, if not flawlessly:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And later in his career his failings were about more than his beginning to lack speed and his technical shortcomings being exposed. Bad legs are the toughest thing to cover up with speed just as they are the toughest thing to cover up with technical acumen, though the later is obviously easier than the former.
Perhaps the best way to look at it would be on a continuum. Jones has some technical prowess -as long as he has been boxing, he had to at least have picked some up accidentally at least!

But Jones really cannot be termed a technician. He could put technically-sound hooks and crosses together exceptionally well, his balance was good, he understood range, and could even slip shots very well. He showed all of that against Tate. Wlad fights like Frankenstein, but his jab and right are technically perfect.

Does Wlad's mastery of a few punches make him a technician?

Even those technically-sound things that Jones did were partly due to athleticism as well -balance for example, range, slipping shots to some degree.

Shouldn't more be required? Most amateurs learn how to throw straight punches and balance within weeks. How many times did Jones weave under a shot and come up with a counter at an angle? In the Tate fight, he went kind of under a left, but in the wrong direction. What'd he do against the ropes? He did then what he still does -an Ali-imitation. Squaring off, leaning on the ropes, high guard, giving up his ribs. That is bad technique. I'm sure you'd agree that just because he got away with it doesn't make it good technique.

The proof against his being a technician is very strong. I know you know this already. You can actually see his short shelf-life in that Tate fight. He is doing now what he did then, only slower and without the output. What's changed? Nothing really.

The seeds of his humiliation were planted in precisely those spectacular knockouts that we all celebrated. If he built a foundation in fundamentals instead of relying on fleeting youthful vigor, his Legs of Stone would not have to be so catastrophic.

Question: What is Jones today?

Answer: He's Ali without the guile and without the chin...!

[Nightcrawler]

This statement really shines a light on the difficulty of quantifying the issue.

I would not say that Pacquiao is a pure athlete. He is technically pretty damn good. I think that he is good enough to be termed a stylist at times. And Roach is not about to slack on technique and strategy and have him rely on athleticism.

Barrera-Hamed is among the best examples in my book. Barrera is a purer technician, Hamed the purer athlete.

Also, I can't see how one would "master" natural talent.

good point and i was struggling with the phrasing. more accurately may be the top echelon of both speed and technique respectively.

nonetheless, despite pac's technique (which is top class) he relies primarily on natural skills.

marquez, despite clearly being a top class athlete, relies primarily on technical prowess.

neither has ever proven, imo, better than the other

[Bogotazo]

People are severely underrating Jones's skills.

[Nightcrawler]

People are severely underrating Jones's skills.

he boxed against sugar boy maligna, vinny paz (for some reason) and sporatically against numerous opponents like reggie johnson that he couldn't overwhelm

he had technical skills, just didn't need them until his physical attributes had completely eroded at which case he was found wanting

[red cobra]

Perhaps the best way to look at it would be on a continuum. Jones has some technical prowess -as long as he has been boxing, he had to at least have picked some up accidentally at least!

But Jones really cannot be termed a technician. He could put technically-sound hooks and crosses together exceptionally well, his balance was good, he understood range, and could even slip shots very well. He showed all of that against Tate. Wlad fights like Frankenstein, but his jab and right are technically perfect.

Does Wlad's mastery of a few punches make him a technician?

Even those technically-sound things that Jones did were partly due to athleticism as well -balance for example, range, slipping shots to some degree.

Shouldn't more be required? Most amateurs learn how to throw straight punches and balance within weeks. How many times did Jones weave under a shot and come up with a counter at an angle? In the Tate fight, he went kind of under a left, but in the wrong direction. What'd he do against the ropes? He did then what he still does -an Ali-imitation. Squaring off, leaning on the ropes, high guard, giving up his ribs. That is bad technique. I'm sure you'd agree that just because he got away with it doesn't make it good technique.

The proof against his being a technician is very strong. I know you know this already. You can actually see his short shelf-life in that Tate fight. He is doing now what he did then, only slower and without the output. What's changed? Nothing really.

The seeds of his humiliation were planted in precisely those spectacular knockouts that we all celebrated. If he built a foundation in fundamentals instead of relying on fleeting youthful vigor, his Legs of Stone would not have to be so catastrophic.

Question: What is Jones today?

Answer: He's Ali without the guile and without the chin...!
:deal

[salty trunks]

I'm not sure you are understanding my point. No one is dismissing the advantages that speed brings. What I am saying is that it is not more important than advanced technique. It is a great supplement, but it does not replace the craft. Do you agree with that or not?

I'm not trying to get out of line by saying this, but if speedy guys could come off the street, walk into that gym you frequented and whip guys who had been applying their craft for years, then the problem can only be that the gym had bum trainers.



I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Jones. Are you reading my posts?

Tyson's handspeed "was only a complement to his quickness"--?

Again, Tyson was a well-trained machine with exceptional fundamentals. He knew how to slip shots and close the distance, he understood angles, counterpunching, defense, etc. His speed and power complimented that foundation.

The best foundation is fundamentals. Any trainer who doesn't see that should have their license revoked. Am I wrong?

To use a fighter like Tyson again as an example, no matter how sound in fundamentals he was, he still couldnt accomplish what he did without the speed he possessed. Sound fundamentals dont allow fighters to dominate with massive deficiencies such as height and reach, especially against tall mobile outside boxers which he faced often.

The best foundation is speed because fundamentals are the easiest things to teach and they dont have to be perfect in a fighter who possesses spectacular speed. Thats the underlying point of my post.

[PetethePrince]

Good thread. In terms of fighting tall I think you could qualify Wlad as a technician even though he does some things to dislike (Jumping straight back with arm-extended in reaction to an attack, for example).

[Webbiano]

Hopkins is a prime example of this.

So is are likes of JMM and to an extent Ali. Although he had great speed he lacked power and was arguably the best heavyweight of all time. I mean how many of your top 20 let alone 10 all time p4p were devasting punchers like Tyson or Tito? Few if any. I think Power is important, however no match for speed or 'technical perfection'

[Nightcrawler]

in going through the thread i like stonehands overall point and tone.

I would personally say that neither is more important but you can't teach speed/power...you can teach technical perfection. if someone walks into the gym you CANNOT neglect the basics and instruction has to focus on the techniques

i would assume that even incredible atheletes learned the basics first and most of them improvised and altered their styles later.

speed and power get you far, depending on how much of each you have. earnie shavers might have had more power and slight better technique than foreman but was never able to reach to top. it's a combination of technique and physical attributes, and rarely in equal portion, that make the very best fighters.

if i had to pick, i wouldn't. i could practice technique for years, i'm not a high enough level athlete to compete as a pro boxer. on the other hand, a great rugby player isn't shit as a boxer unless he committs to learning the craft. you can't seperate the two

[Stonehands89]

To use a fighter like Tyson again as an example, no matter how sound in fundamentals he was, he still couldnt accomplish what he did without the speed he possessed. Sound fundamentals dont allow fighters to dominate with massive deficiencies such as height and reach, especially against tall mobile outside boxers which he faced often.

The best foundation is speed because fundamentals are the easiest things to teach and they dont have to be perfect in a fighter who possesses spectacular speed. Thats the underlying point of my post.
So you would argue that, speed or spectacular speed, is "more important" than advanced technique. "Speed replaces craft."

...NOTHING replaces craft!

Don't you think that the poor craft of so many so-called contenders today can be laid at the feet of your position? American trainers are all about flash and style and overlook -or don't understand- substance.

We agree that speed is important, man. Speed kills, yes indeed. And it's hard to overcome if you don't know what you're doing. There is a way to fight speed -one way- and it's rooted in craft. Vernon at 2:28...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

A good example, but Forrest was rather tall and long.

I agree with your description of Mosley (Or are your idea of fighters nowadays). What's interesting to note is that Futch said Mosley was the most promising upcoming fighter before he died.

[Stonehands89]

A good example, but Forrest was rather tall and long.

I agree with your description of Mosley (Or are your idea of fighters nowadays). What's interesting to note is that Futch said Mosley was the most promising upcoming fighter before he died.
Tall and long helps, but Vernon was a boxer-puncher who understood his craft and that's why he fared so well.

I don't see Mosley as a pure athlete. Though he's not a technician either. That clip was just to emphasize through Vernon's words, how craft defeats speed.

[PetethePrince]

Tall and long helps, but Vernon was a boxer-puncher who understood his craft and that's why he fared so well.

I don't see Mosley as a pure athlete. Though he's not a technician either. That clip was just to emphasize through Vernon's words, how craft defeats speed.

Definitely agree. But being tall and long helped make for a good style matchup for Forrest. Had he been shrunken down he probably would've won regardless because of your point, but because he wasn't I don't think it's the best example... that's all.

[Stonehands89]

Definitely agree. But being tall and long helped make for a good style matchup for Forrest. Had he been shrunken down he probably would've won regardless because of your point, but because he wasn't I don't think it's the best example... that's all.
Fair enough.

[Stonehands89]

Definitely agree. But being tall and long helped make for a good style matchup for Forrest. Had he been shrunken down he probably would've won regardless because of your point, but because he wasn't I don't think it's the best example... that's all.
Question for you: Would Wlad be as successful if he was 6'1?

[PowerPuncher]

Saddler was highly skilled.

Patterson was highly skilled.

If you had to choose between the two, would you rather have fast hands and bum technique, or slow hands and sound technique?

I'd argue handspeed is part the product of good punching technique :D

And I disagree on Saddler, his jab was ponderous and he gave up height throwing it, his long range punching generally isn't too good, his hands quite low with a chin up in the air. His in fighting is very good, lovely fast devastating bolo punches. And that takes us back to my initial poing, he can throw these quick and fast hooks, so it's not like he doesn't have the natural speed, but he doesn't have a quick snappy jab or straight right to dominate from outside? The technique isn't quite there with him and Archie did say he would have wanted Saddler to boss with his jab more and he would have been incredible if he mastered this

Let's take another example of speed/athleticism over technique: Taylor-Hopkins - Taylor much the worse technician but the speed of Taylor won out. Hopkins even identified Taylor's 'bow and arrow' but still couldn't quite deal with the speed

Perhaps the best way to look at it would be on a continuum. Jones has some technical prowess -as long as he has been boxing, he had to at least have picked some up accidentally at least!

But Jones really cannot be termed a technician. He could put technically-sound hooks and crosses together exceptionally well, his balance was good, he understood range, and could even slip shots very well. He showed all of that against Tate. Wlad fights like Frankenstein, but his jab and right are technically perfect.

Does Wlad's mastery of a few punches make him a technician?

Even those technically-sound things that Jones did were partly due to athleticism as well -balance for example, range, slipping shots to some degree.

Shouldn't more be required? Most amateurs learn how to throw straight punches and balance within weeks. How many times did Jones weave under a shot and come up with a counter at an angle? In the Tate fight, he went kind of under a left, but in the wrong direction. What'd he do against the ropes? He did then what he still does -an Ali-imitation. Squaring off, leaning on the ropes, high guard, giving up his ribs. That is bad technique. I'm sure you'd agree that just because he got away with it doesn't make it good technique.

The proof against his being a technician is very strong. I know you know this already. You can actually see his short shelf-life in that Tate fight. He is doing now what he did then, only slower and without the output. What's changed? Nothing really.

The seeds of his humiliation were planted in precisely those spectacular knockouts that we all celebrated. If he built a foundation in fundamentals instead of relying on fleeting youthful vigor, his Legs of Stone would not have to be so catastrophic.

Question: What is Jones today?

Answer: He's Ali without the guile and without the chin...!

The thing is there are many technical aspects to master in boxing. Basic straight punches can be learnt quickly but mastering them takes along time.

As technicians Jones and Ali do cut corners and paid the price. Ali's defensive openings for the left hook saw him lose at 28/29. Jones didn't age worse than ALi either, he didn't lose by being actually beaten until the age of 35, the age where Ali was losing to Spinks and getting disputed decisions. Ali not only has technical defensive errors but also rarely sits on punches and doesn't really properly throw the left hook.

If you want to point out Jones technical weaknesses your best viewing the Harding and Griffin 1 fights, where he was somewhat neutralised by technique and the jab.

Ali after the age of 28-29 was very reliant on his chin, that's the real difference between the 2, when Ali aged his chin kept him in fights but they were still pretty much done at the same age.

Question for you: Would Wlad be as successful if he was 6'1?

Well he could of been depending on his mentality imo but he'd need more than a jab and high guard and would have to adapt. He has excellent handspeed, excellent jab and he used to have an amazing left hook, which Steward barred him from using. He'd have to change from outfighter to mid range/in fighter. He'd need to learn to move his head and would be forced to back opponents up rather than only boxing in and out. As a package he'd need to become like Holyfield

[janitor]

In your opinion?

Bat Masterson listed the three most important characteristics of a gunfighter, in order as:

1. Composure
2. Acuracy
3. Speed

In a boxer I would say:

1. Technical proficiency
2. Speed
3. Power

[Webbiano]

Bat Masterson listed the three most important characteristics of a gunfighter, in order as:

1. Composure
2. Acuracy
3. Speed

In a boxer I would say:

1. Technical proficiency
2. Speed
3. Power

A boxing brain ranks above speed and power IMO. PAC Vs JMM 3 being a prime example

[Stonehands89]

I'd argue handspeed is part the product of good punching technique :D
BAH! That's a cop-out!

And I disagree on Saddler, his jab was ponderous and he gave up height throwing it, his long range punching generally isn't too good, his hands quite low with a chin up in the air. His in fighting is very good, lovely fast devastating bolo punches. And that takes us back to my initial poing, he can throw these quick and fast hooks, so it's not like he doesn't have the natural speed, but he doesn't have a quick snappy jab or straight right to dominate from outside? The technique isn't quite there with him and Archie did say he would have wanted Saddler to boss with his jab more and he would have been incredible if he mastered this
What's the toughest aspect of technique to master? Infighting. It's very tough in there. Show me a great infighter and 9 times out of 10 I'm calling him a technician.

Let's take another example of speed/athleticism over technique: Taylor-Hopkins - Taylor much the worse technician but the speed of Taylor won out. Hopkins even identified Taylor's 'bow and arrow' but still couldn't quite deal with the speed.
Great example. However, though "technique will usually beat speed," is a pretty damn good principle, a better one is "styles make fights." Pryor-Arguello being the supreme example.

The thing is there are many technical aspects to master in boxing. Basic straight punches can be learnt quickly but mastering them takes along time.

As technicians Jones and Ali do cut corners and paid the price. Ali's defensive openings for the left hook saw him lose at 28/29. Jones didn't age worse than ALi either, he didn't lose by being actually beaten until the age of 35, the age where Ali was losing to Spinks and getting disputed decisions. Ali not only has technical defensive errors but also rarely sits on punches and doesn't really properly throw the left hook.

If you want to point out Jones technical weaknesses your best viewing the Harding and Griffin 1 fights, where he was somewhat neutralised by technique and the jab.

Ali after the age of 28-29 was very reliant on his chin, that's the real difference between the 2, when Ali aged his chin kept him in fights but they were still pretty much done at the same age.
Yeah.

Question: What is Jones now?

Answer: He is Ali without the guile and without the chin.


Well he could of been depending on his mentality imo but he'd need more than a jab and high guard and would have to adapt. He has excellent handspeed, excellent jab and he used to have an amazing left hook, which Steward barred him from using. He'd have to change from outfighter to mid range/in fighter. He'd need to learn to move his head and would be forced to back opponents up rather than only boxing in and out. As a package he'd need to become like Holyfield
!

...Listen man. That question was for Pete the Prince. When I'm laying a TRAP for Pete the Prince or whoever else, don't screw it up.

[Stonehands89]

Bat Masterson listed the three most important characteristics of a gunfighter, in order as:

1. Composure
2. Acuracy
3. Speed

In a boxer I would say:

1. Technical proficiency
2. Speed
3. Power
I like that. Both actually.

[Duodenum]

Great example. However, though "technique will usually beat speed," is a pretty damn good principle, a better one is "styles make fights." Pryor-Arguello being the supreme example.
It's about time somebody Alexis up. I've been looking for mention of him all through this thread.

He did handle faster and more powerful opponents than himself. He had tremendous height and reach at the lower weights, but proved as he moved up that he'd progressed enough to not be utterly dependent on those advantages. At his 130 pound peak, one commentator described him as one of the only four classical champions in boxing. (Don't ask me to identify the other three that broadcaster was referring to, as he didn't elaborate further, and I don't recall who the announcer was, only that it wasn't Cosell, and that it was during one of Arguello's defenses at 130, possibly Leon.)

Manager Eduardo Roman said his knockout effectiveness stemmed more from precision placement rather than raw power. His execution was such that between Marcel in February 1974, and Pryor I in November 1982, only a peaking fellow master boxer in Vilomar Fernandez was able to sneak a ten round MD past him, a streak of 25 bouts covering nearly nine years.

This is not an attempt to answer the thread question, just citing an example of technical excellence in somebody who won all 16 of his title defenses in three weight divisions.

[Nightcrawler]

It's about time somebody Alexis up. I've been looking for mention of him all through this thread.

He did handle faster and more powerful opponents than himself. He had tremendous height and reach at the lower weights, but proved as he moved up that he'd progressed enough to not be utterly dependent on those advantages. At his 130 pound peak, one commentator described him as one of the only four classical champions in boxing. (Don't ask me to identify the other three that broadcaster was referring to, as he didn't elaborate further, and I don't recall who the announcer was, only that it wasn't Cosell, and that it was during one of Arguello's defenses at 130, possibly Leon.)

Manager Eduardo Roman said his knockout effectiveness stemmed more from precision placement rather than raw power. His execution was such that between Marcel in February 1974, and Pryor I in November 1982, only a peaking fellow master boxer in Vilomar Fernandez was able to sneak a ten round MD past him, a streak of 25 bouts covering nearly nine years.

This is not an attempt to answer the thread question, just citing an example of technical excellence in somebody who won all 16 of his title defenses in three weight divisions.

it's a very excellent example though. arguello was technically gifted those fast neither of hand or foot. he used maximum leverage to put the most beef into his punches, despite being a beanpole at each weight class. his timing was brilliant and set up his shots. one of the better examples of technique creating power and compensating for speed

[PetethePrince]

Question for you: Would Wlad be as successful if he was 6'1?

Of course not. Is this in response to the Wlad technical big man statement. If he was shrunken down, I don't think he'd be a good technical big man. No, but seriously, can one by limited or basic while being a technician? Are my standards just too low when it comes to Heavyweights, particularly the Super-Heavyweights. :lol:

[PetethePrince]

A boxing brain ranks above speed and power IMO. PAC Vs JMM 3 being a prime example

Agreed, creativity and spontaneity are just as important as speed & power in my opinion. A lot of them comes through almost instinctual, which is learned, but a boxing brain that allows for flexibility is a far more effective fighter than a rigid 1-2 technician. You can be almost too technical in a sense if it stifles creative and spontaneous initiatives as a boxing.

[salty trunks]

So you would argue that, speed or spectacular speed, is "more important" than advanced technique. "Speed replaces craft."

...NOTHING replaces craft!

Don't you think that the poor craft of so many so-called contenders today can be laid at the feet of your position? American trainers are all about flash and style and overlook -or don't understand- substance.

We agree that speed is important, man. Speed kills, yes indeed. And it's hard to overcome if you don't know what you're doing. There is a way to fight speed -one way- and it's rooted in craft. Vernon at 2:28...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Yes I would argue that. Take the most dominant fighters in history and a lot of them have one thing in common and that is tremendous speed, timing specifically, which is the most important facet of speed. Floyd Mayweather JR for example doesnt blind us with hand and foot speed but his timing in defense and offense is impecable. Rocky Marciano same thing.

In the case of Vernon Forrest I believe he was a way better technically skilled fighter than Mosley was fast, and his timing was indeed very good.

Mosley is a good example of a guy who got pretty far using his speed but wasnt the most technically sound fighter using that speed. Mosley possessed speed and power but he never bedazzled me with anything more than average technical form.

A better example would be DLH/Mosley where you had two equally skilled fighters and the quicker guy won using his quickness.

DLH is another great example of a guy who was not the complete fighter but was able to make up for a lot his technical lackings with blazing speed. DLH years into his championship run was still trying to develop a righthand!

I dont know why you dont believe Roy Jones is a good example? I specifically used the Toney fight as an example. I believe James was about as technically sound as they came and he could not offer anything to offset the speed of Jones and Jones didnt win that fight on anything other than speed and in one sided domination.
If we are comparing the extremes of speed and technical skills to each other as in the case of Toney Jones speed comes out on top.

You cant apply speed to technique but you can always apply and advance technique to speed.

[salty trunks]

Question for you: Would Wlad be as successful if he was 6'1?
I think a lot of what makes Wlad good is his speed. He has very good handspeed and timing, specifically with his jab and hook.

Do you think Wlad would be as good if he didnt have fast hands? Hes got a lot of shortcomings to his game?

Would Nikolai Valuev be a lot better if he was as quick as Wlad?

[Bummy Davis]

Speed and power can negate any amount of technical perfection.
" It only takes one punch",as a despairing Jim Corbett shouted to a bloody , but unbowed Jim Jeffries.
In truth, I don't know the answer,and I suspect there is not a definitive one.

good honest answer. There are examples for the strengths of all of these Power,speed and technical perfection and its almost like rock,sizzors,paper if you know that game...we have all seen each one of these strengths beat the other from time to time

[Stonehands89]

Of course not. Is this in response to the Wlad technical big man statement. If he was shrunken down, I don't think he'd be a good technical big man. No, but seriously, can one by limited or basic while being a technician? Are my standards just too low when it comes to Heavyweights, particularly the Super-Heavyweights. :lol:
Anyone calling 1-2-3 jump back Wlad "a technician" should be strapped to a chair with their eyelids clamped back and forced to watch film of Ortiz, Arguello, Johnson, Louis, and Chavez for 142 hours or until such time that they repent.

[Stonehands89]

Yes I would argue that. Take the most dominant fighters in history and a lot of them have one thing in common and that is tremendous speed, timing specifically, which is the most important facet of speed. Floyd Mayweather JR for example doesnt blind us with hand and foot speed but his timing in defense and offense is impecable. Rocky Marciano same thing.

In the case of Vernon Forrest I believe he was a way better technically skilled fighter than Mosley was fast, and his timing was indeed very good.

Mosley is a good example of a guy who got pretty far using his speed but wasnt the most technically sound fighter using that speed. Mosley possessed speed and power but he never bedazzled me with anything more than average technical form.

A better example would be DLH/Mosley where you had two equally skilled fighters and the quicker guy won using his quickness.

DLH is another great example of a guy who was not the complete fighter but was able to make up for a lot his technical lackings with blazing speed. DLH years into his championship run was still trying to develop a righthand!

I dont know why you dont believe Roy Jones is a good example? I specifically used the Toney fight as an example. I believe James was about as technically sound as they came and he could not offer anything to offset the speed of Jones and Jones didnt win that fight on anything other than speed and in one sided domination.
If we are comparing the extremes of speed and technical skills to each other as in the case of Toney Jones speed comes out on top.

You cant apply speed to technique but you can always apply and advance technique to speed.
I offered Jones in probably my first post as an extreme example, as an exception. Your bringing him up suggests that you are conceding the point. The point is that Jones, Ali, and Hamed are supreme examples of superior athletes who went far based on something approaching pure athleticism. They're exceptions that prove the rule.

Look at it like this...

Let's says somebody named Fred was an aspiring boxer. One day Fred was walking to the gym when a bolt from a spaceship struck him and gave him outlandish speed. Suddenly, no technician in the world could do a thing with him because none of them could gauge his speed. That kind of speed is miraculous. He changes his name to Flash and becomes a world-beater.

Does Flash make you right? Does Flash prove that speedy guys beat technicians?

No. Flash is exceptional. Foreman, for example, was a poor technician but he was so damn strong and hit so damn hard, guys with more advanced craft had a tough time with him. Would you say that Foreman proves power beats technicians? No. Power is the great equalizer and may at times beat the technician, but technicians can usually take those guys. Boxing has answers. It isn't such a simplistic activity that big or fast punches rule it.

Sure, there are fighters so damn fast or who hit so damn hard, or both that they can beat technicians, but you are arguing that that is the norm. And that's where I think you're wrong.

Boxing is a craft. It's a science. Science has answers. Southpaws used to give everybody fits, because they were so rare. Now everyone should know ways to deal with them that take away their edge.

In the same way, speed can usually be handled. Power too. Every now and then a phenomenon will rise up (like Jones) and wreak havoc on guys with more experience, better craft, better resumes. But they are exceptions. And when they age, their off-the-charts athleticism diminishes, and their no longer the friggin Incredible Hulk wrecking everyone, they can end up looking like Doc Bruce Banner

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

---without the "Doc."

[PetethePrince]

Anyone calling 1-2-3 jump back Wlad "a technician" should be strapped to a chair with their eyelids clamped back and forced to watch film of Ortiz, Arguello, Johnson, Louis, and Chavez for 142 hours or until such time that they repent.

Aha, well what are my standards supposed to be for tall Super-HWs? I get your point, though. If you're talking Jack Johnson, I'm not sure I can completely jump on board with that.

[salty trunks]

Stonehands your still not getting the point. You can compare the extreme or not, on a relatively equal playing field speed comes out on top more. You can ask any trainer what they would rather have and work with and they will say speed everytime.

[Stonehands89]

Aha, well what are my standards supposed to be for tall Super-HWs? I get your point, though. If you're talking Jack Johnson, I'm not sure I can completely jump on board with that.
I don't think much of that Johnson's style. Harold is a different story.

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands your still not getting the point. You can compare the extreme or not, on a relatively equal playing field speed comes out on top more. You can ask any trainer what they would rather have and work with and they will say speed everytime.

Any trainer telling you that speed is preferable to technique or that speed is the foundation on which to build a fighter at the expense of technique ....is a dope.

[salty trunks]

Any trainer telling you that speed is preferable to technique or that speed is the foundation on which to build a fighter at the expense of technique ....is a dope.

:lol:Funny enough I was just watching the show on HBO about freddie roach and he was asked pretty much the same question and he said he would take a speedy guy over anything else. I guess Roach is a dope too?

[Stonehands89]

:lol:Funny enough I was just watching the show on HBO about freddie roach and he was asked pretty much the same question and he said he would take a speedy guy over anything else. I guess Roach is a dope too?
I saw the same thing. He was not saying what you're saying. If he did then neither Khan nor Pacquiao would have much of a reason to join him in the first place, since they already had speed. Tell me, do you believe that Pacquiao was pre-destined to ascend to his current heights had he not remarkably improved his craft? Without Roach?

Knowing how to box well is more important than fast hands.

[Bokaj]

Interesting discussion this one. Tempted me to post in Classic again for the first time in ages.

This a very difficult question, almost impossible. But if an amazing athlete who never has boxed before step up against a master technician of the same size but almost no speed or power left, the technician will win 9 out of 10. The McCallum of the Jones and Toney III fight would kill any 175 lbs super athlete without any boxing knowledge at all. Of course, McCallum had tons and tons of experience, instinct and tactical knowledge as well, so perhaps this a bit too an extrem scenario.

I personally liked the distinction that was made in an early post between HWs and other weight classes. The Baers and Foremans of this world rarely have such success in other divisions.

[Stonehands89]

Interesting discussion this one. Tempted me to post in Classic again for the first time in ages.
The joint is poorer without yah.

This a very difficult question, almost impossible. But if an amazing athlete who never has boxed before step up against a master technician of the same size but almost no speed or power left, the technician will win 9 out of 10. The McCallum of the Jones and Toney III fight would kill any 175 lbs super athlete without any boxing knowledge at all. Of course, McCallum had tons and tons of experience, instinct and tactical knowledge as well, so perhaps this a bit too an extrem scenario.

I personally liked the distinction that was made in an early post between HWs and other weight classes. The Baers and Foremans of this world rarely have such success in other divisions.
Ain't it the truth.

[Bokaj]

The joint is poorer without yah.


Ain't it the truth.

Thanks!:good

[salty trunks]

I saw the same thing. He was not saying what you're saying. If he did then neither Khan nor Pacquiao would have much of a reason to join him in the first place, since they already had speed. Tell me, do you believe that Pacquiao was pre-destined to ascend to his current heights had he not remarkably improved his craft? Without Roach?

Knowing how to box well is more important than fast hands.

Neither one of them are above average technicians to this day. speed is the reason Roach took them on in the first place. he wouldn't have given either one a second look if they weren't speedsters. PAC was as raw as they come when Roach hit the mitts with him. He saw how quick he was and took him on.

[Stonehands89]

Neither one of them are above average technicians to this day. speed is the reason Roach took them on in the first place. he wouldn't have given either one a second look if they weren't speedsters. PAC was as raw as they come when Roach hit the mitts with him. He saw how quick he was and took him on.
The first thing that struck Roach was Pacquiao's power. And he has spent hour after hour adding to Pacquiao's tool box, not toasting his speed.

As for Khan...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[salty trunks]

Yeah he says he was making fundamental errors. Why else would Roach want to work with him?? His whole style is based on speed not power. Your wrong about PAC too. Yes he admired his power but not as much as his quickness.

[ripcity]

Giving this some time to think about it's best to have both. You can get really far with one or the other. There are a lot of guys who work hard master the bsics and have really good careers as in they become champions, despite not having the best natural skills. There are other guys who just on their talent become champions, but never live up to their potional. The ones who are really great have the natural ability and the mastery of techonal skills.

[Drew101]

Hmm...

I'd go with technique in most cases.

Alberto Davila wasn't necessarily slow, but in most of his well known fights, he was physically over-matched by his opponents. Yet, he was still able to give good to great accounts against opponents who were faster/stronger/harder punchers simply because he had such sound technique. Really, the only fighters who were able to score definitive victories over him were Zarate and Gomez...And they were both capable technicians in their own right.

That being said, I remember watching Ali-Williams and thinking that Cleveland's punching technique that night was actually pretty good. If you watch that fight, and examine just the punches that Big Cat throws they're pretty compact and well thrown. But by and large, they miss Ali by miles because Ali was so freaking fast. So power and speed. while not essential, are certainly good attributes to have at any rate.

[Stonehands89]

Yeah he says he was making fundamental errors. Why else would Roach want to work with him?? His whole style is based on speed not power. Your wrong about PAC too. Yes he admired his power but not as much as his quickness.
Have it your way.

Again, no one is dismissing the advantages that speed brings. What I am saying is that it is not more important than advanced technique. It is a great supplement, but it does not replace the craft.

So let me ask you again: Do you agree with that or not?

[Duodenum]

Hmm...

I'd go with technique in most cases.

Alberto Davila wasn't necessarily slow, but in most of his well known fights, he was physically over-matched by his opponents. Yet, he was still able to give good to great accounts against opponents who were faster/stronger/harder punchers simply because he had such sound technique. Really, the only fighters who were able to score definitive victories over him were Zarate and Gomez...And they were both capable technicians in their own right.Prior to becoming champion, he was as successful a non-champion as any contender in the lighter weights. He had questioned power, and one boxing periodical said, "Will need a guardian angel to escort him to the title." What happened to Kiko Benes was a bizarre and tragic anomaly, but Davila did manage a successful defense the following year, and a very respectable career overall.That being said, I remember watching Ali-Williams and thinking that Cleveland's punching technique that night was actually pretty good. If you watch that fight, and examine just the punches that Big Cat throws they're pretty compact and well thrown. But by and large, they miss Ali by miles because Ali was so freaking fast. So power and speed. while not essential, are certainly good attributes to have at any rate.He had the fastest hands of any similarly sized HW Ali could have defended against at the time. Just about everybody says he shouldn't have been in the Astrodome challenging for the title, but that gunshot didn't seem to effect his hand speed. His jabs were pretty fast. (In Muhammad's brief 1970 comeback, the very quick fisted Jerry Quarry also barely touched him. In fact, I think he and Big Cat each landed about six punches.) Chuvalo and Terrell may well have been the only two heavyweights who could have taken him the distance at that stage. (Machen and a rematch with Doug Jones might have offered those possibilities, but of course Terrell had already beaten them in paper title bouts.)

[salty trunks]

Have it your way.

Again, no one is dismissing the advantages that speed brings. What I am saying is that it is not more important than advanced technique. It is a great supplement, but it does not replace the craft.

So let me ask you again: Do you agree with that or not?

I think Ive made my point pretty clear. We obviously dont agree. Advanced technique is not necessary when you have blinding speed. Technique can be applied to the base of blinding speed and it doesnt have to be perfect to be successful or even dominant for that matter.

Thats what trainers look for when a kid walks through the door because they know they can apply technique to that speed. Thats why Roach only needed one session with Pac, and Cus D'Amato only needed to see Tyson spar once and said "there's the next heavyweight champion." Having power and reach are all secondary to the root of speed.

Speed is the root that makes great fighters and really noone is technically perfect, noone, and speed allows fighters to make more mistakes that can't be exploited. Thats why you saw fighters like Jones Jr and Ali with their hands down or leading with dangerous open power shots, but were able to get away with it for so long. They were making blatant technical errors but their speed kept them out of harms way.

[Stonehands89]

I think Ive made my point pretty clear. We obviously dont agree. Advanced technique is not necessary when you have blinding speed. Technique can be applied to the base of blinding speed and it doesnt have to be perfect to be successful or even dominant for that matter.

Thats what trainers look for when a kid walks through the door because they know they can apply technique to that speed. Thats why Roach only needed one session with Pac, and Cus D'Amato only needed to see Tyson spar once and said "there's the next heavyweight champion." Having power and reach are all secondary to the root of speed.

Speed is the root that makes great fighters and really noone is technically perfect, noone, and speed allows fighters to make more mistakes that can't be exploited. Thats why you saw fighters like Jones Jr and Ali with their hands down or leading with dangerous open power shots, but were able to get away with it for so long. They were making blatant technical errors but their speed kept them out of harms way.
I don't disagree so much with most of this. I totally disagree with any position that argues that speed is more important than craft, for reasons stated at length.

Thanks for the duel, salty. It's fun having positions tested.