Do you agree or disagree with this statment

I dont agree or disagree, I believe it depends on the individual, for everyone that says Muhammad Ali, Roy Jones etc to support the non textbook thing, others can hit back with Joe Louis, Alexis Arguello etc.

 

Yes and No, textbook boxing doesn't always make you the most skilled, but skills win fights all else being equal. However physical superiority can overcome great skills

Disagree about Vitali not being an arm puncher too, he is an armpuncher he just throws **** loads of punches

 

i agree in a way. but every great textbook fighter they are usually talented to boot. every showboaty low handed fighter is flawed whether or not it is exposed.

actually we all know when we see a good fighter with good technique or bad technique you can just tell what they can do. just better technique makes you get your punches off sooner and defend faster, you may not be as spectaculur or awkward but you are so well composed and well rounded that it's hard to flaw it.

mayorga was horrificly bad but you could see that what he wanted to do. his combinations where pretty good even though they slapped a bit.
roldan messed up his feet threw odd awkward shots but got the job done and was a dangerous opponant.
tysons approach may not be orthodox, but his style was efficiant, effective and explosive. also he knew every punch in the book. he was able to counterpunch if the opponant came to him aswell.
arthur abraham is very negative, throws wide looping shots and lacks a real jab, but is still solid and technically sound.

 

Well few fighters are 100percent textbook.

For most fighters it's about finding the right balance between textbook skills and more unorthodox additions.

 

I agree with most of what he says.

Not even Joe Louis was "Perfect" so to speak. He had slow feet.

 

You can be textbook and have jazz and creativity. Textbook doesn't equate to predictability, neccessarily. Just watch Ezzard Charles.