Skill/Technique only take you so far...

[Bokaj]

Of the really superb technicians I've seen most have had quite a lot of success.

Off the top of my head they would be H. Johnson, Duran, McCallum, Kalambay, Hopkins and Mayweather. They all reached a measure of greatness. Perhaps Kalambay could/should have achieved more.

Which are the great technicians that fell short of expectations? Curry?

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by teeto

Add to that that Roy Jones isn't the best example to use when discussing technique

Yes Teeto...Harold Johnson's picture should be there instead of Jones.

[johnmaff36]

Originally Posted by reznick

Yea I said it.



Skill and technique are great assets to a boxer, but people act like its the CORE of a boxers ability.



I was watching Friday Night Fights the other night, and one of Roach's fighters, Kayode, a great prospect was fighting some old white bald guy who looked like he had a belly.

This was supposed to be a match to give Kayode more spotlight. I was looking forward to seeing what he had in store for the boxing world. Watched the training footage of him, he looked awesome.

When the bell rung, the difference in technique of the two fighters were very appearant. Kayode with his guard up, stalking his prey, with short but fast movements. He looked like a machine. The other guy was basically using lateral movement side stepping the entire time with his hands down. Like a very poor imitation of Gene Tunney.


Well round by round, the old white guy was outjabbing and out timin Kayode. Kayode started getting frustrated, opening up more, but the other guy was landing all the meaningful punches and big exchanged, moving out JUST in time from Kayodes big punches. You could see it in the guys eyes, and his trainers were talking to him like it was a movie. You could tell this was the fight of this guys life.

Anyways the guy clearly won, got robbed, the decision got booed, and the trainers were swearing up and down.

This fight really opened my eyes to the fact that skills and technique are great assets, but they dont mean squat to the basics of distance judgement and timing.


Which is why I now seriously give any fighter a chance, past present future. Because their stance, and their style doesnt mean as much as the execution of the basics of one on one combat.

Of course its a very big part in a boxers make up, i certainly think so, but without heart and character it will only take you so far. Heart and character sorts out the good from the great

[Pachilles]

physically gifted freaks with heart and a fighting mentality rule the roost

[Nicky P]

Ask Mayorga how far a great chin can take you. Ask Corrales how far heart can take you. Any one or two aspects in boxing can only take you so far. Skill, technique, timing, it's all the same. It's about who can put it all together the best.

BTW, Kayode is garbage.

[Bokaj]

I think Barrera-Hamed is an excellent illustration of the importance of technique. The best example of a technically flawed natural being schooled by a master craftsman that I can think of.

[reznick]

You guys have made excellent points. Powerpuncher, do you know the fight Im speaking of? Kayode may not have great technique, but couldnt you tell the clear distinction between the sharpness and finesse in his movements compared to the older guy? The other guy fought more sloppy, in the sense that he didnt look that good, but he was far more effective

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Doesn't mean "squat"? That's surely taking it way too far.

A bit of an overstatment, but I meant in comparisons to timing, and distance judgement, technique and skill are not as important as people make it out to be.




I just think people are looking for the wrong things, when comparing fighters of new and old. Thats the nature of my intention of making this thread. Its that people are placing way too high importance things like punch guard styles and stances.

Isnt that the #1 answer why people say pre-20's fighters wouldnt stand a chance with the best today?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by reznick

A bit of an overstatment, but I meant in comparisons to timing, and distance judgement, technique and skill are not as important as people make it out to be.

I just think people are looking for the wrong things, when comparing fighters of new and old. Thats the nature of my intention of making this thread. Its that people are placing way too high importance things like punch guard styles and stances.

Again I have to refer to Hamed-Barrera. Hamed has great distance judgement, timing and reflexes to go with scary power, but his shit stance, low guard, crap upper-body movement, poor footwork and exposed chin is enough for the physically inferior Barrera to beat him up.

A couple of things can be noted:

1. Hamed's "fencer" stance makes his jab more of a poke, and his exposed chin and low shoulder means that Barerra easily outjabs him, even though jabs shouldn't play such a big part in a southpaw/orthodox match-up. His stance also means that his left has a long way to travel, and even though it should be his greatest weapon becausse of the southpaw/orthodox match-up it's therefore rendered more or less useless.

2. Since Hamed is so exposed when punching he gets countered and can't put any combinations together. He's reduced to "hail mary's" more or less.

3. His lacking technical defence and footwork causes him to be off balance when backing off from Barreras attacks and therefore unable to counter.

In summation: He's outjabbed, can't use his straight left effectively, can't attack effectively without being countered and can't counter effectively when he's attacked. And all this because of the huge flaws in his stance, footwork and guard. If these were at the same level as Barrera's, Barrera would have done well to last the distance. Technique makes all the difference in the fight.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Technique is very important, but other factors of course also come into the equation. Range negotiation and timing for example. And then there are also those (like Benitez and Ali for example) that have this great sense of where they are, where their opponent's punches are and what they are going to do about it. This great handle of the situation even at its most hectic and intense.

Then there's also the ability to read the opponent, make him react to your feints but not react to his. Boxing is a very complex sport and there are many skills that doesn't fall readily in either of the "technique" or "abilities" brackets.

Well said.

[PetethePrince]

I don't understand this distinction between timing, judging distance, and then "skill" and "technique." MMA fighters have shit timing and ability (For lack of a better word) to judge distance... because they don't have those skills. What you take as a natural ability or technique that doesn't matter is skilled acquired through experience. Regardless of how fat or bad some fighter may look. They're still most likely not some random fat guy walking off the street.

[reznick]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

I don't understand this distinction between timing, judging distance, and then "skill" and "technique." MMA fighters have shit timing and ability (For lack of a better word) to judge distance... because they don't have those skills. What you take as a natural ability or technique that doesn't matter is skilled acquired through experience. Regardless of how fat or bad some fighter may look. They're still most likely not some random fat guy walking off the street.

I think your dissecting the term 'technique' too deep

You know the term timing beats speed?

Thats what I mean



But nice example and explanation Bojak