Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

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.

 

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.

 

This content is protected

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.

 

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.

 

Yes, without question.

 

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...

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.