Tyson Fury looks like a 1910 fighter here

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
You seem to be conceding that Fury can use different techniques suited to his size. That doesn't make his technique poor. He's equipped to show different techniques.

There are lots of big fighters out there, few if any could outpoint Wlad Klitschko.

If a technique is consistently effective at that level, it's good.
It can't be poor.
Poor technique can never be consistently effective.

 

Have you tried it yourself? Against someone taller with longer reach?

 

Fury is very underrated by some people, the man has incredible skill for his size.

 

Flawed fundamentals like Fury's is not consistently effective, since they require advantages in size and/or speed. That is my whole point.

Again, envision him trying that style against Joshua or Wlad while giving up 5 inches and 50 lbs. That's a wholly different thing.

A fighter with good textbook fundamentals doesn't have to be better than a fighter without, since physical and mental attributes and abilities also come into play, as well as experience. Ali, Nunn, Jones and Naz are all fighters that have been more successful than many fighters with more sound fundamentals. Their natural abilities let them get away with things other fighters don't get away with. But when for example Naz ran into a top quality fighter with textbook technique in Barrera he couldn't get away with them anymore.

If two fighters are equal in everything else, but one has better textbook fundamentals than the other I'd bet my house on that fighter.

 

Yes, for his size. And that's why he's effective.

But make him 5'5' and 145 lbs and put him in with Pac. Pac would lit him up something silly.

 

But then he wouldn't be an ungainly oaf so would be a completely different fighter.

 

I think Nelson hits the nail on the head, when he suggests to Fury: "It sounds like you're trying to torment him."

 

No. But I'm puzzled by why you're implying something is "poor" simply because it (allegedly) won't work against someone taller and with longer reach.
There's no such thing as a perfect technique that is always the best against every style and size of opponent.

The hips rotated forward, "sit back" stance with the suitable foot placement is a classic stance in boxing and in other martial arts. They can't all be wrong.

 

Fury is undoubtedly overweight, but I don't think he's close to 2,000 pounds. Maybe 400.

 

Well, you could also imagine him being 6'9 and 255 like he is (when he was fighting) and fighting in Mike Tyson's style, hands high, storming forward and springing out of crouch. He'd probably be a disaster.
Different styles suit different bodies.
Each fighter develops good technique suited to his style and size.

Okay, if you want to say Muhammad Ali had "poor technique" then go ahead. I'd say he had unorthodox techniques. His results are enough to prove they were good, great even.

 

Bokaj, thinking about it, it's probably just a matter of terminology/perspective.
I'm looking at it from the point of view of what works for an individual (all exceptional talented, champions all of them), whereas the textbook standards are 'correct' as a guide for the general mass.

I will say I think Tyson Fury is a better boxer than Naseem Hamed and if he were to face something his own size and speed with 'textbook' styles he'd be fine, he tends to adapt accordingly. Naseem Hamed's main problem was his increasing reliance on power, and that's always a problem whether you're unorthodox or texbook.

 

"Storming forward" is a tactic, not technique.

But a high disciplined guard and sound head movement wouldn't hurt Fury one bit. Quite the opposite. I think we will see that when/if he takes on Joshua, Wilder etc.

So when you're losing the argument you put words in my mouth that I never used?

Ali did some things very, very well technically so I don't think he had "poor technique" and never said he had. But he broke the textbook in that he held his hands low and leaned straight back. That cost him at times. Probably the first fights against Frazier and Norton.

 

Even the most talented unorthodox fighters would benefit from being more textbook. When they slow down they need those fundamentals. Compare Jones and Hopkins when they got older, for example. Ali also shipped unnecessary punishment when he started to slow down.

Textbook technique works for everyone. Do you sparr any? Because I find that sparring makes it very clear just how dangerous it is with low guard and leaning back etc. I almost never fail to capitalize on it, and when I get sloppy myself I get punished in return.

 

No, that wasn't my intention (nor did I notice I was losing the argument, but I don't mind if I was).
I was extrapolating from the original statement we were discussing : my contention that Tyson Fury did not have "poor technique", your belief that he does. I assumed you were introducing Ali, Nunn, Naz to the conversation to expand on, and further explain, the validity of that statement. I assumed they were examples put forward to show how Fury isn't alone in getting away with "poor technique" due to natural abilities or physical make-up.

I didn't pick up on the vital nuance between poor technique and "less sound fundamentals" and I should have, so I apologise.

 

Yeah, they should have made adjustments, that's undisputable.

I've sparred and I'm not much good.

The thing is, you seemed to be critiqueing a stance that has been used successfully by, and was certainly in vogue in the past with, some very accomplished and 'scientific' professional boxers. (not sure it's all "1910 fighters" as the title on this topic might be misleading)
I mean, there's a possibility that there's a proper way or using the stance that you'd need to be taught and practice with.
What I'm refering to is basically tilting the hips so the boxer is sat back, with a strong back foot (probably with feett in the old "L style"), creating a natural lean but not forcing that lean excessively. A stand-up style but sat back some. I think the great Jack Johnson fought that way sometimes.