Why do people so often make the distinction that speed = skill

It is possible to have speed and skill. Most of the fighters mentioned in this thread have or had both speed and skill.

 

Speed can be taught and learned to a point. The actual speed that your fist travels is not always the same as the length of time it takes your fist to reach it's destination. They are not one and the same and I think its worth noting.

The later can be taught and learned, the former has a much harder genetic cap to it. That is why some guys who are visually have very fast moving hands, get countered by someone whos fist moves slower, but lands on target sooner.

 

Last time I checked Amir Khan got a silver medal at aged 17 only losing out to Mario Kindelan...and then went onto become a two time world champion...If you think thats only down to speed then lol...

 

khan is obviosuly skillfull but he doesnt have the balance other elite guys have nd his speed is what carries him

 

Speed is a skill.

 

More speed brings things to their destination QUICKER. At the top level, most boxers can punch in a straight line. To counter someone with faster hand speed you need to dodge their punch because they will hit you first. That's actually how it works.

 

James Toney is actually a great athlete, probably one of the best in the sport.

He's just fat.

 

Hopkins disagrees.

And I am talking about the difference in milliseconds, it can easily be the difference in you landing first and heavier, which tends to do wonders for you not being hurt by theirs a half a second later.

Plus I think you didnt fully read or comprehend what I said, there is a difference in having a hand which is very fast and a hand which lands sooner (or as you would say... "quicker").

What you are talking about is counter-punching after the the punch, what I am talking about is counter-punching during the punch. Which is not the same thing as counter-punching someone BEFORE their punch.. which is a whole different thing on it's on.

Most newer fighters think the only way to counter someone is make them miss then make them pay. Countering during their punch can be VERY devastating.. Countering before can just totally neutralize their offense.

 

Money is the all around package.

 

toney has bad legs though he doesnt get around the ring all that well its difficult to make distictions because theres so many factors. Toney is more of a pure boxer and i thinnk its harder to imagine him in other sports thats were im coming from

 

I'm talking about the laws of physics. Counter punching during the punch and beating them to the punch would require you to throw a shorter punch, ie, counter a hook with a cross. A faster punch will always hit the target first, punch distance being equal. I agree, I'm struggling to comprehend your arguement. You need to be more specific. If an opponent uses his positioning defensively to make his opponent have to punch further to reach him then I guess he can overcome certain speed disadvantages, but generally, the faster punch lands first.

 

If you only have speed, it's only a matter of time before you fight someone who has great timing, and can negate your speed.

 

timing beats speed..... every.day of the week

 

Essentially I felt as if you quoted my post to say disagree with what I said, which was technique can make a fighter beat a faster handed fighter to the punch.

Then you went on to say that at the higher level you are required to dodge someones punch first to counter them, which I disagreed with and illustrated my examples of how and why.

Your latest post is a bit more reasonable, but I disagree that the faster moving punch tends to land. I think the better timed punch lands first, then the punch that travels the shortest distance, then if both of those things are even, THEN the punch that is thrown fastest lands. I feel not very often those first two are even enough for the the later be the case very often.