Boxing is an art. You play sports you dont play boxing

I agree with this. There is no doubt that to make it to the top, you need great athleticism.
But the sentiment of the thread is spot on though...you need more than pure athleticism. You need an innate toughness, which is why the vast majority of successful fighters have come from terrible backrounds.

 

the better skilled fighter will always win, sometimes a well conditioned fighter cause problems but they just prolong there beatings at the end of the day.

 

I'm the biggest Roy Jones fan there is, I was just using his name as an example of freak athleticism. He never had to perfect the 'art' of boxing, he did boxing his own way thanks to his athleticism. My point was that athleticism can't compensate for skills.. if you had athleticism on a Roy Jones level then you could probably still do very well without perfecting different aspects of your game.

 

boxing is a sport like any other sport.. you need skills like any other and training will only make you better.... of course if you take an athlete that hasnt boxed long and put him with an experience boxer well the athlete will get schooled no matter how fast, big and strong he is..

but all things being equal i'll pick the good boxer that's also a great trained athlete over the boxer with no athleticism 90% of the times


:hat

 

:deal

 

Good and reasonable Post Michigan Man!:thumbsup

 

No the point is being a good athlete does not make you a good boxer.

just cause someone excels in one sport it does not mean they will be good in another.

The fact Seth Michell got as far as he did is cause he was an overprotected hype job.

 

Rubbish, it is a total myth that RJJ was not a good technical boxer. It is just that movement was a big part of his style and when that went he could not adapt.

 

Pretty much. Reminds me of the hemingway quote but boxing should be listed in there as well

“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.”

 

There is a REASON they call it the "sweet science." :nod

 

just like being a good athlete doesnt make you a good baseball player or basketball player or soccer player or a swimmer.... boxing is no different there are a lot of skills involved that you need to learn with training over the years


:hat

 

Learn to read, nowhere am I saying that Roy Jones wasn't a good technical boxer. He was technically good using his style based on athleticism (Head movement, feinting, unorthodox angles and combinations using his reflexes), when that athleticism went he didn't have a traditional technical style that a regular boxer needs to rely on.

 

:deal

 

I hate when people say that. If a fighter's reflexes go, he's done. None of this "technical skill" bull**** matters if you can't pull the trigger when the opening is there.

 

:huh
You base your style and technique on your physical attributes, if your technique is based on a foundation of athleticism and your athleticism goes you need more traditional technique that plays the percentages and is safer. You don't have to be fast and pull the trigger at the right time if you have orthodox boxing techniques ingrained. Look at Hopkins, he makes his own openings so he doesn't have to react to anything. He plays safe boxing so he doesn't have to rely on athleticism/speed/reflexes.