"Technique"

Some technique is universal to all boxers, some is specific to individual boxers' talents and deficiencies. Not all fighters should fight the same way, tall and short, fast and not so fast, long and not so long... they require different emphasis in technical training and strategy.

I put more importance on reflexes, timing, distance perception and stamina. But that's just me.

 

Tyson and Byrd aren't very different in technical terms. They're different in tactical terms since Tyson was a squat and very powerful fighter. But both hold their hands in a high guard, both slip and duck, both work off the jab, both have a quite proper footwork (there's a tactical difference in that Tyson probably puts more emphasis in cutting off the ring, though).

When looking at Loma, Rigo and Ward for example - most things are quite similar. They all use the main tenants within some individual variations, with the main difference being that Loma and Rigo are southpaws and Ward orthodox.

And good technique is in no way in opposition to reflexes, timing and boxing iq. Best is to have all of them.

As for Ali, he had great balance and accuracy in throwing his punches and combinations. He could also display some really good textbook movement and at times even textbook head movement. When he slowed down he also started to become somewhat disciplined with his guard (watch Manilla, for example). But then he had a lot of unorthodox moves who always was a bit of walking the tightrope. It almost went south against Jones and Cooper and did against Frazier and Norton. Futch masterminded Norton's victory on the very flaws he saw in Ali's technique, for example.

 

They have very different technique.

 

How? You think they throw punches differently? Have differing guards and head movement (Tyson has a peek-a-boo guard, but it's not that different from the high guard Byrd utilizes against Vitaly)?

Tyson is obviously much more aggressive, but that's tactics.

 

Variations On A Theme By Paganini.lol

 

Yes, different punching technique. As far as the defense, Byrd relied was more of a slickster and relied more on upper body movement. Tyson's style was based on head movement and feet positioning.

 

Over my years of being a boxing fan I've decided all that stuff is meaningless.

It's more about winnability. Should Rocky have just bore down on everyone he fought throwing none stop power punches? Probably not but he did anyway and it worked.

Should sweet pea have crossed his legs when he was spinning away, probably not but he did anyway and it worked.

Should Jones have fought with his hands so low? Probably not by he did anyways and it worked.

Etc.

 

Hard to disagree with any of this. Might go without saying but I'd add ring IQ and coordination to the list at the end.

 

Uppe body movement? Did he roll punches?

And ad for punching technique, there are really proper technique and the rest. Tyson had quite proper technique, didn't Byrd? Was he an arm puncher?

Sure, Tyson probably put more mustard behind his punches, but that's primarily a tactic for me.

 

Jones might have lasted longer with proper technique for one.

Nunn probably wouldn't have lost to Toney. Ali quite possibly wouldn't have lost until at least Spinks.

You can obviously do very well even though you break some basic principles of boxing technique, but you can do even better if you don't.

 

In top echelons of professional boxing, good technique is anything that is working.
Great champions don't have "poor technique". They might (and probably will) have individualised technique, and use techniques you wouldn't want to teach a beginner or someone without the same experience and talent.
But they don't have poor technique.

The great thing about top quality boxing is the variations in styles, the idosyncracies of the top fighters, their individual tecniques they employ.

ALL techniques can be countered though, whether it from the texbook or something individualised a top pro employs.