Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-14-2012, 06:28 PM   #46
dillinja
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki View Post
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.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-14-2012, 06:30 PM   #47
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
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...!
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 06:33 PM   #48
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
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
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 06:41 PM   #49
Bogotazo
Amateur
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 14,721
vCash: 121
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

People are severely underrating Jones's skills.
Bogotazo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 06:47 PM   #50
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogotazo View Post
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
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 10:31 PM   #51
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
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...!

red cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 10:14 AM   #52
salty trunks
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,192
vCash: 500
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
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.
salty trunks is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 01:46 PM   #53
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

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).
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 01:57 PM   #54
Webbiano
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: England
Posts: 2,787
vCash: 500
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orriray59 View Post
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'
Webbiano is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 02:06 PM   #55
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

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
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 02:27 PM   #56
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by salty trunks View Post
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...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kehIfR4uZCo[/ame]
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 02:54 PM   #57
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

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.
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:01 PM   #58
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PetethePrince View Post
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.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:04 PM   #59
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
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.
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:22 PM   #60
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PetethePrince View Post
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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013