Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless: True or False?

I'm pretty supportive of the way novices are introduced to boxing in the Soviet school of training. Everybody first learns the basics religiously in a fairly traditional style, and then as people become more advanced/experienced, develop their own style.

I think in an ideal situation, if your not talented, being smart and having amazing fundamentals will maximise your chances of winning. If you are talented you adjust to accomodate your abilities. For example, if you are lightening fast or have amazing reflexes, then you can become more unorthadox, and your unpredictablility would work to your advantage (which a less talented fighter couldn't do). Then, as a talented guy, as your reflexes go, your able to become more traditional and have more longevity (e.g. Hopkins).

I just think that when a new kid walks through your door, you need to make sure he learns things right, without killing his natural rhythm/inovative approach.

 

no, in time an athlete will evolve into his own style, but after a certain point he cannot make any real fundamental changes, so teaching the basics correctly is essential, as if their own style and their own natural abilities are fundamentally poo (e.g moving laterally with crossing the legs) they will be poo. poo is not good!

 

I see it more as an equalizer. Amazing how a great jab can offset overwhelming handspeed.

 

Talent can be a crutch for lack of fundamentals. Fundamentals can be a crutch for lack of talent. On one hand you can say someone has great fundamentals, but if he's talentless, he won't be able to utllize those fundamentals. On the other hand someone can be full of talent, but without some sort of fundamental base they won't be able to utilize the talent. It really just varies depending on the person, and an argument/example can be given for either side.

 

But I think all the talent in the world will only get you so far; if you don't have the technical knowledge, you'll get exposed. I think 99% of individuals can make a name for themselves and go very far if they're drilled with fundamentals relentlessly regardless of natural talent level, and have the third unmentioned but most important ingredient: the hunger.

 

Crutch? For the talentless? No. For the talented? Yes.

That is the whole point of any and all Martial Arts. To create a synergy of codified practice that consistently and reliably creates an effective fighter when applied to a certain base level quality of human input. The whole point of any Martial Art is to have you survive enough fights to be able to begin to learn on your own.

A person with a natural aversion towards the fighting arts will be hindered by learning fundamentals and should be focused on a unique and personal fighting style. They have the natural gifts to gain enough experience already.

How is this a "crutch" for the talentless?

 

This is just not true. How far is "so far"? The nature of fighting is that if you fight enough you WILL lose not MIGHT. So basically the farthest you can go in the world of fighting is to get into the circle of elite competitors for some time span.

You see it daily in Boxing gyms. A guy has been there for 5 years. Some other dude walks in off of the street and can school the senior guy out in 6 months. Why? Fundamentals won't help you beat a naturally gifted fighter once he "gets it".

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ISwivnhMpI[/ame]

 

You don't think a talented fighter with a lack of fundamentals will get exposed or beaten much sooner than one who knows the game better?

I chalk up those guys to those that just weren't taught well. There was a kid in my gym who was awkward as **** and never got it, and while my coach was a good coach, I never saw him try to make him "get it" any better. Talent is important, but a willingness to actually learn and apply the technical skill necessary to compete is more important IMO.

 

Hamed got rocked so many times in that fight, and showed his true "skill" when he went up against true world class talent.

 

When you come up against an athletic freak of nature, fundamentals won't save you. Roy Jones beat Hopkins, Toney and Mccallum who all had good fundamentals. But at the end of day, physical gifts win.

 

But like I said in previous posts, RJJ's physical gifts were so glaring, that people forget he had a great deal of technical skill as well.

 

Its like Muscle Memory, theres no such thing .

 

All things being equal? No. ALL fighters are beaten no matter how sound their "fundamentals". Fundamentals or not, fighters are beaten by better fighters. Period. So the only thing we can use to judge this is fighters at their peaks. "Knowing the game" is relative to the rule set and natural gifts. Rules change. People are different.

If we review the history of great fighters? A huge number of the singular talents have NOT been fundamentally sound by casual observer standards. Good at what they do? Beyond good. Unparalleled. Should any Average Joe repeat it? Heck no. Beyond the Average Joe, the fundamentals of fighting are relative to the fighter.

The more specific the training/strategy is the the fighter, the more "fundamental" it is. The fundamentals of the peak-a-boo used by Tyson would be complete crap in the hands of Larry Holmes or the Klits. The same way the "fundamentals" of a fast counter-punching with quick reaction time fighter presenting targets so as to respond (Ali, S. Martinez, RJJ, FMJ, Toney) make no sense for a slow busy fighter.

Competing with Average Joe's and being a good Boxer are two different things. Fundamentals are different to every person. Average guys do well with average fundamentals. Talented guys need specific training based on their proficiencies/deficiencies. Average Joes could benefit too, but their area specific talents really don't warrant the special attention.

Remember, fundamentals are only there to make the average guy effective. A talented fighter who is destined to face talented fighters needs specific strategies that maximize his effectiveness while diminishing his weaknesses.

 

This fight is a great example. Who is "fundamentally sound" here? I can sit here ripping off a bunch of reasons why neither man is. What they are both though is AMAZING talents. When men of that level clash? The better fighter wins.

Barrera was throwing jabs, letting his arm fall, and returning it back to position. He was also throwing body shots dropping his arms and not changing levels behind a guard. His head protection was also quite sloppy. None of this was an issue due to his size, reach advantage, mental determination, chin, and doubt/hesitation causing power at the weight.

Naseem Hamed had an EXTREMELY unorthodox style, but with his gifts it was fundamentally sound for him. He was fast, could punch from odd angles, and had KO power in both hands. The key is though he had to wind it up a bit and let guys "set themselves on the hook" if you will. His openings baited guys to reach and he made them pay. The only issue here is that you need "nerves of steel" to fight in this manner. The slightest self doubt makes the style ineffective.

At the end of the day the better fighter won. IMHO this would have been a completely different fight had Hamed been a few inches taller, of thicker build, and had a reach advantage. This was a fight were styles were heavily dependent on size.