Can a fighter be considered a technician without knowing how to infight?

This is going to sound insane-

technically they could be a technician without being technically good at in fighting. Being a technician is a styles issue, so it's not really concerned with being technically good in any particular department. A technician for me is someone who doesn't excessively move about the ring, but someone who doesn't neglect footwork. A good technician is a fighter who dominates the centre of the ring using feints, jabs etc to open up his man and exploit openings to the body and head. To be a good technician you need to know how to in fight, other wise you will be outboxed most likely, or countered the **** out of.

But technically speaking if your style is to do what the above states, but you're not good at in fighting, then you would be a technician still, you would just be pretty **** at it. The answer is yes but that's being awkward, for argument's sake i'll say no. Ya dig?

 

If a fighter is always looking to get in and out, or box at range, for me they are a 'pure boxer' (Howard Winstone). This can then have sub styles such as 'defensive minded boxers'. If a fighter is always looking to agress they are 'an agressor' (Mike Tyson) for me, this can be broken down into sub styles such as an 'educated pressure fighter' and a 'slugger'.

An all rounder who steps around the middle of the ring exploiting his opponents body and head for me is a technician (Jose Napoles, Yoko Gushiken, Barney Ross). And yes to be good at it you need to be a good in fighter.

 

In fighting to the degree of excellence Duran did it is definitely all about technical brilliance, that's pure technical skill from top to bottom. Technical skill is the first and foremost factor of in fighting, no doubt about it. If you see two lads in the gym sparring and only one of them has in fighting experience and knowledge, and it goes to close quarters, you'll see one of them not knowing what the **** to do.

 

Probably not, that fight is excellence, somebody on here once described it as 'the best of boxing', and I agree fully. And yeah, Hopkins especially is quality at putting punches together in bunches at various ranges, and when he fights someone of a lesser quality he just totally outclasses them inside (i can't speak for EVERY fight, before some wise ass calls me out). And Floyd inside has such a fine defense, and his offense is nice there too, counters etc.

 

You're right. That sounds insane.

 

Do you get what I mean though? For me being a technician is a styles issue, therefore you can be a technician but be **** at it. Just like you can be a slugger but be **** at it. Being a 'technician' for me is not the same thing as being 'technically good' in any particular area. You can be an aggressor and be technically good at it, like Tyson, but that doesn't qualify him as an all round technician for me.

Napoles is a technician, and I'm sure it's you i've seen saying that he's not one for the fundamentals (may be wrong on that being you, but whoever it was, I agree). His being a technican is a stylistic matter, he does all of what I mentioned above.

 

Maybe I´m wrong.......But Harold Johnson doesn´t infight......Right ?
I can´t remember very well right now.....

 

Napoles had great fundamentals. You may've misconstrued what I or someone else said in regards to him being a prototype for young fighters to emulate, though. In that sense I'd agree. He helds his hands at chest level and baited his head, for example. Not something to emulate, but something his built-in sense of awareness allowed him to not only get away with, but open up upportunities with.

I've always said that boxing is more art than science, to a degree anyways. You have to master the fundamentals before experimenting and ultimately bringing your own unique touch to things. That's what the great ones do, anyways. Generally speaking of course, as you can always cite examples of riffing Jazz musicians in the ring. I'll end the metaphors now.

Anyways, I was just confused as to your point about how lacking in inside fighting ability opens up an almost purely outside boxer to counters.

 

That's exactly what I mean. His smoothness is something he was capable of on a personal level.

Always a higlhy interesting and thoroughly enjoyable debate for me, the 'art vs science' argument. For me it purely comes down to the individual. There are examples of what you say, those who combine scientific knowledge with an artistic outlook on their opponents. I did an assignment not long ago on art vs science in terms of accounting, and I concluded it by saying that accountancy is an art, but not a pure art, it is more art than science, but science is inherent within it, and to a lesser degree it is also a social science (ahh my masterpiece). Anyway, on that note I would say Sugar Ray Robinson is the closes thing to a fighting accountant as has ever been!

But there are others on the contrary to what you're saying imo,like Hopkins, he has mastered boxing from a technical stand point, but 95% of the time there isn't much art to his work. Even when he was more agressive back in the day, he'd be beating the **** out of people with his chin tucked in and was nicely poised to minimise damage unto himself. Just a pure scientist.

You've misunderstood me Buja. I wasn't commenting on a purely outside boxer. My comment was about a fighter who uses the style of an all round technician but is lacking in an area of his game, which in this scenario is in fighting, he would be wide open as he is trying to fight inside but is terrible at it. I'll say it again, being a technician is a styles issue imo, not a 'how good you are' issue. Look at Roy Jones, he goes to work in the same manner as a technician, moves about the ring but not in an Ali-esque way, jabs, goes to the body, goes inside. But technically he is pretty terrible. That's an example you can fault if you want to nit pick but it's just a loose representation of what i'm saying, which you know i'm going to stand by, peace!:good

 

For me personally, a technician is a fighter who is relatively good and executing their craft in comparison to the best people to ever practice that style of fighting and sufficiently better than the other people in their era practicing that style.
What other people like to call a technician , say for example BHop, i prefer to call an all round technician. Some one who can do a little bit of everything.

 

We usually refer to a fighter who is well rounded in all areas of fighting a complete fighter. A technician, in my mind at least, is someone who is well schooled on the fundamentals of distance boxing. Guys like Vernon Forrest or Winky Wright for example, were text book technicians but neither the greatest infighter.

 

That's my definition as well.