These two terms get thrown around a lot: He's a better boxer, or he's a textbook boxer. Is there a difference? Wladimir is usually called a textbook boxer. This is because he is great at using boxing 101 skills close to perfection and the videos of his boring style of boxing is perfect when I give my little brother his first boxing lessons. His clutching of other boxers when being attacked is also a good skill considering that he does not want to risk being KOed. Thus, he is a great textbook boxer, and at the same time a boring boxer, because he does everything possible to win, and nothing extra to entertain. So considering this, Ali was not a good textbook boxer. I tell my little brother not to box like Ali because his style is somewhat dangerous, albeit more dramatic. So when people give their Top 10/20/30 HWs of all time, what do you consider? Do you consider who would beat who when put in the ring together. I honestly believe that prime Vitali could've beat many Top 20s only because the guy a solid chin, powerful hands, great stamina, and so much taller than older boxers. But that doesn't mean that he was a better boxer to me. Or, do you consider who were the more entertaining boxers? Or, who were the better textbook boxers? Please answer, what does it mean a better boxer? And who would be your top 20 Textbook boxers (what HW fighter would you use to teach someone great boxing skills and not so much entertaining, but risky, boxing techniques)?
Text-book boxers set up everything with their jab/lateral movment and keep a high guard. I would say wlad is text book with his use of the jab
For being a HW. He is sort of a textbook boxer. You cant be as fluid as Ricardo Lopez when you are 6'6 and weigh 240lbs.
I dont consider Wlad a great example of textbook boxer...He uses his physical advantages a lot more then anything else. Curry is an excellent example of a fighter who had textbook skills on the inside and outside.
Wladimir is there just to win, and take no risks. Using your physical advantage is part of the lesson. You taller, learn how to fight tall. So he is a skilled boxer for his natural ability. Pac-Man is a great boxer too, but what you he do in Klitschkos body. So considering the human ability, and doing the best with what you are given.
He cant really infight and I think he makes technical errors all the time..He is a very impressive athlete who has developed a style that has worked him. He doesnt fit my definition of a textbook boxer..doesnt mean he isnt very good and most importantly very effective.
I'm not too sure about HW but Alexis Arguello is the first person that comes to mind when I hear the term, "textbook boxer"
there is a difference between being a good boxer and being extremely effective. Wlad's style belongs in the latter category. it's an insult to good boxers everywhere to refer to Wlad as a technician. Lennox Lewis was the better boxer anyway.
Well, I wouldn't call him a "technician", but do you honestly think Wlad is a bad boxer? I mean he's not the most talented fighter in the world, but the things he does in the ring, he manages to do them perfectly from a technical point of view, doesn't he?
of course he's not a bad boxer. he makes good use of his arsenal. his jab is almost perfect. his right hand is powerful. his 1-2 is devastating. footwork is average. he employs a tactic that makes use of the best of his strengths and suppresses weaknesses.. but i have a problem with people saying that such a style embodies the "sweet science"
Vlad looks perfect!!!!!!! Ricardo Lopez was boxing 101 and so is Vlad. All good boxers use their jabs, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Louis, etc., esp. tall boxers. Vlad is very exciting fighter to watch for me. He almost always gets a knockout, has great footwork, balance, fantastic jab, left hook, right hand, right hook, uppercut whenever he used it, he has everything. I love his defense also. Vlad moved so smoothly, esp. for a 6 feet 7 inch heavyweight. Remember, he won the gold medal back in 1996!!!!!!!
