How Long Did It Take You to Appreciate TECHNICIANS!?

Right away. It's actually what attracted me to the sport.

 

when i first got in the ring with one..

 

Still boring as hell alot of the time

I'm a technical boxer as well...

lol

Also a number of them these days are cocky annoying little f*cks

 

I appreciated the greats of the mid 80's when I was about 10 upwards but the fight where I knew I was really getting it was Michael Watson's masterful tactics against Benn.
Next day at school no one was talking about the things I saw so that was the time I knew I was getting it aged 15.

 

Yeah Watson threw pretty punches.

:tong

 

This was right around the time of my transition from "casual" to "diehard"...just as the guy responsible for that was underdoing his own transition from brawler to boxer:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=395765

:good

 

That was certainly an unusually pleasant surprise from Boxnation.:good

 

Yeah. I was like :shock: :happy op

 

It was actually my appreciation of his defencive tactics which drew strange looks and raise eyebrows.:bart

 

Alexis Arguello was the first fighter I really took a liking to watching and follow.
Technical brilliance along offensive aggresiveness to go along with it. That was Arguello, and a mighty high bar to uphold watching future technicians operate.

For me, Arguello set that bar. It was a hell of a high standard for me to get interested in watching other so called technicians who did'nt operate with the mentality of an Arguello.

Those are still my standards, I have'nt budged.

Boxing technical brilliance to me is a technical boxer like Arguello who invites exchanges.


I say, how technnically brilliant can a boxer be if he plans around avoiding fistic exchanges, instead of inviting them so that you yourself can show your brilliance against a fighter thats aggressive toward you?

 

The book arrived on Wednesday Divac.Should have it read for end of week and I'll let you know how it was.:good

 

Do let me know if its worth buying!:good

 

when i saw hopkins vs. taylor 1, that's when i began to love the sport of boxing, and hate it. hopkins put on a great display, neutralizing the undefeated fighters advantages in speed, youth, size, and strength. he thoroughly schooled the younger fighter before being robbed of his titles. it made me hate the fact that boxing is more a sport of winning rounds than winning the fight.

 

Both those Hopkins-Taylor fights are exactly that of a fighter who pretends he's administering a boxing lesson.

Hopkins did zero the first half of those fights, which is why he lost.
Hopkins was a fighter that stalled and avoided fistic exchanges against Taylor instead of welcoming them like a true boxing technician would have.

Brilliant boxers invite and embrace the exchanges instead of finding ways to smother, clinch, and rough house your way into stalling the fight to a stand still.


Hopkins brilliance showed in his fights with Pavlik and Tarver, but certainly not vs Taylor!