What exactly makes one a 'technician'?

Of course technical skills are involved, but there's more to it than just that...how exactly would you define it?

Would you describe it as a fighter who knows how to apply his skills and game plan very well? Someone who really knows what they are doing in there and does things in advance?

Being great at exploiting any weaknesses or mistakes of the opponent?

 

As well as what you talk about i like to see a guy proficient in pretty much all area's with good technique. A tidy inside fighter, a tidy outside fighter and one who can block and evade punches via various means such as blocking, slipping, parrying etc. Feinting must also be well utilized. He should be decent off both front and back foot as the need arises as well. Lastly punching technique should be reasonably orthodox and correct and he should have a good array of counters. A guy good at nullifying punchers and aggressors with crisp defensive moves and counters that can also move forward on cuties and force them out of their rhythm over the duration of a bout.

Of course not many are going to have all that but those are the things i keep in mind i guess.

 

I c your describing an ATF of mine Mr George Benton

 

Benton was a superb technician, particularly defensively. I've mentioned him quite a few times since i've been back.

 

Too have the whole toolkit basically, but not in a flash way.

 

It's all a continuum but I consider pure technicians to be the fighters who are able to pick apart their opponents and defensively neutralize them through the precise, controlled application of boxing technique, rather than through brute power, volume, or physicality (mauling). They're generally very sound fundamentally but they don't necessarily use "textbook" boxing styles. They have versatile jabs and varied punch arsenals. They're great at timing and placing punches, especially counters. They can avoid punches very efficiently, with minimal unnecessary movement or effort. Just my subjective, idiosyncratic take.

 

I've grown to dislike this terminology and associated terms.

For me the only thing that really matters is winnability. Is the man able to put together his attributes and allow him to win a fight. Doesn't matter how aesthetically pleasing they are. Chavez Vs Taylor, Margarito Vs Cotto, Marciano vs Walcott. All against supposedly better technical men but none of that mattered by the time the KO blow was landed.

 

plaster

 

Ok. So it's unnecessary, to discuss power, speed, chin, stamina, ring generalship, will to win, etc as well then? Because they are all, just as technique, only parts of what you call winnability.

 

It's absolutely not unnecessary. It's just something I dislike.

Early Judah was one of the most aesthetically pleasing boxers in history but he didn't fulfill his potential by the end.

In a boxing forum people can discuss whatever they want, I don't have to like it and people don't have to bother about what I like.

 

Never heard Rocky accused of plaster before, do you have any further info please?

 

I haven't banned you (nor would I if I could) or insulted you, I've just questioned you. That is also very much what you do on a forum.

And I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think an aesthetically looking technical style is the only thing it takes to be successful, or for that matter is necessary to be successful. It is just one part. Some have it more than others, just like with all the other parts (speed, power, boxing brain, discipline etc etc).

This thread opened up for the particular part that is technique. You ventured your dislike for that with a totally nonsensical argument - arguing against something no one has claimed. I'm just calling you on that.

 

My argument wasn't nonsensical. I said I dislike the terminology. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact. It's 100% accurate.

You haven't called me on anything, you asked whether or not we should stop talking about speed, power, chin etc. I said no we shouldn't.

 

Chavez was more technical than Taylor