I will say some less obvious names... Johnny Bredahl.. Terchnically perfect, dances like a butterfly, but stings like a fly. No punch what so ever. Mike Tyson.. Is known for power and brutality.. But actually was a technically very very proficient fighter. Especially in his earlier years. Ok... Mayweather... I don't like the moron, but he is technically proficient.
I agree. When it comes to textbook punching and footwork, Trinidad is a great example. He boxed exactly like my coach tried to teach everyone to box
Pernell Whitaker is the closest thing to boxing perfection that this sport has ever seen. He could fight offensively (see McGirt II) as well as he could fight defensively (see Chavez), he had a perfect jab, he could punch to the body as well as he could punch to the head, he could fight inside or outside with equal ease, he was a smooth brilliant combination puncher, his defence was sublime... The only slight flaw in his game was a tendency to leave himself off-balance at times, but ultimately he was the greatest technical boxer of all-time in my opinion.
A lot of these choices are awful. Shouldn't a "technically perfect" fighter have a versatile mixture of offensive and defensive techniques? People just seem to be naming guys who threw punches with good form.