I just watched Barrera vs Hamed and it got me thinking do sound fundamentals counter new, innovative and different styles. I felt in that fight that Barreras excellant fundamentals were too much for the trickery and awkwardness of Hamed. Fundamentals are the fundamentals for boxing for a reason but many great fighters have broken these fundamentals but i believe solid fundamentals can beat flashy, different styles opinions?
Jones McCallum is another good example, even though Mccallum ultimately lost, whenever I watch that fight I can't help thinking 'you know what, if M.M was a few years younger......'
Great question! Truly. But this requires a whole book more or less. For example, what is solid fundamentals and what is flashiness? Was Tunney's footwork fundamentals or flashiness, and how about Moore's and Walcott's defensive moves? Some things that are considered flashiness will be incorporated into what's called "fundamentals". Still, your question is very relevant. Very, very few can box like Ali and Jones did and get away with it. No respectable trainer would ever teach such things. So, for the vast majority sound fundamentals is the way to go, but for the truly specially gifted there might perhaps be some benifit in creating ones's own style. How would Ali and Jones have fared if they were more true to solid fundamentals? This, for me, is one of the truly interesting questions. I'm drunk enough to bring Mozart, Beethoven and Stravinsky into this, so I'll quit here I think...
good points about what is flashyness and fundamentals I think Ali did have good fundamentals before the ban. He would dance around on the outside with his hands down but when he got in range or was punching his hands was up. RJJ is the best example of innovative. He hardly threw jabs relied on speed and reflexes and athletic abilities instead of sound technique.
That's way I say "true to fundamentals". I think Ali had better fundamentals than he cared to use, especially in his prime. He adapted gradually after his legs started to leave him, though.
I've always felt that the better a fighter's technique, the better that individual fighter can be. Certain fighters, like Naseem Hamed, were given a lot of physical gifts that they find a sort of knack for displaying. Hamed had a combination of speed and power rarely seen at his size. Although Hamed was often caught out of position, and sometimes rocked, he had the spirit to come fighting back. I think that Hamed was successful in spite of his technique, not because of it. If Hamed had better technical mastery, he would have had a way to adjust in his fight with Barrera. Commitment to the jab, and not going so far off balance would have been a nice start. Floyd Mayweather Jr. has a more solid set of boxing fundamentals than Naseem Hamed, to say the least. Look at Mayweather's fight against Zab Judah. I believe I had Judah winning 4 out of the first 5 rounds. Judah's hands were quicker, and he certainly has more pop than Mayweather. Mayweather adapted, and I thought he was going to stop Judah until control of the fight was momentarily lost.
