What exactly makes one a 'technician'?

I, for one, still don't understand what you have against the terminology. Is your problem with the term itself, the broader concept of technique, or something else?

 

Nice thread and i think you answered your own question.

I always like to quote honeyghan v gianfranco rosi as a tremendous example of a technical skilled boxer using good feints ,movement and footwork,a jab and slipping shots to set up a perfect right hand that results in deliberate and perfectly set up one punch knockout

 

plaster

 

Depends on what you class as technical doesn't it.

 

plaster

 

I just think, for me, I used to be bothered about how perfect or pleasing a man looked in a fight when really it comes down to so much more than technique or textbook performance.

 

This is a good description of what people think of when they hear the word "Technician."

 

There's definitely a difference between being technical, and being effective.

 

Being technically sound sure don't hurt many people tho. Some boxers would never have made it without high degree's of technical skill. A guy relying so much on reflex and talent like say a Roy Jones probably loses effectiveness when he ages earlier than say a James Toney. Other decent technicians such as Edwin Rosario went a bit power happy at the expense of form and probably lost a bit of effectiveness. Tyson was somewhat similar as he started pot shotting more often later career.

 

Three example 's of textbook technical performance's by technical fighters were
Arguello vs Escalera 2
Duran vs DeJesus 3
Sanchez vs Gomez

 

Chavez is more technical in just about every way Unless you consider hand speed to be technical.

 

Depends on your definition of technical

 

But the whole thread is about what you consider that terminology to be. Instead of defining what you see as a technician you just said you dislike the discussion and that being a technician (which clearly shows you have a concept of what you think a technician is) doesn't mean you'll be successful. Which everyone know and which had nothing to do with the thread.

 

This is more or less end thread imo.

What one perhaps can add to the discussion is what constitutes so called "text book technique" and how far you can deviate from that and still be termed a technician.

 

The thread is about the term technician. I wasn't intending on contributing to the thread. I was staying my dislike for the term.