Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

i reckon the best champs have a bit of everything. or more appropriately they have above average assets in each department (speed, power, stamina etc.) and usuall excel in one or two departments.

if you had to pick technical skill you MUST have something else in the kit bag. power, or speed, or stamina.

if you pick power puncher, you gotta have defensive skils, or solid chin etc.

i've never seen a great fighter have only one quality... even technically perfect fighters

 

I think at lighter weights technique is more important, but at heavyweight power and (for example) a good chin takes you a long way. A heavyweight with no punch is usually not much of a success.

If you look at Buster Mathis jnr and David Tua, I'd say Mathis' pure technique was better but Tua was more successful overall, mostly owing to a big punch.

 

YES!

Someone with talent (speed and power) can not beat someone technically better than themself UNLESS they too are technically good.

Probably only heavyweight is an exception because the guys there aren't really the same size. So a guy can be really good but then get hit by a man 50 pounds heavier than himself.

 

In some ways, it is.For example, Dokes had decent power, great speed, but his technique was flawed in various ways.

 

Technique is the nuts and bolts of the sweet science.
Those who combine sound technique with talent can excel.
Those who disregard technique do so at their own risk.

 

I don't think you can make a rule here. It is going to depend on the fighter, and what the fighter does to be effective.

I think that the people who say heavyweights are able to get away with less technique, than that of other divisions, are probably correct.

George Foreman is an example of being able to win without great technique. George knew how to throw a jab, but he was normally wild with practically everything. He knocked out Adilson Rodriguez with a decently thrown, 4 punch combo, but look at his technique with Cooney. Foreman's strength, chin, and determination made him excel in spite of his technical flaws.

Foreman is just one example.

You can make the argument that they are equally important using the Pacquiao vs. Marquez fight as an example. A lot of people thought Marquez won the larger number of rounds, but still thought Manny could have won the fight. It ended in a draw. Marquez came close to winning with technique, Pacquiao came close to winning with speed and power. Manny has improved his technique significantly since, so a rematch will not give us another go at it.

 

Given a choice, perhaps technique has an edge over power.

Some fighters get by on mostly technique, like Willie Pep and Gene Tunney, although technique means you have done the basics over and over and to me that means your speed and precision will not be too shabby.

Others try to get by on power, but dozens of men never went beyond journeyman status (Bob Satterfield, Luis Firpo, Jeff Merritt, to name just 3 in a long list that includes a couple of football players) because they never learned to develop technical skills.

Ali over Foreman and Frazier and Liston and Shavers, Holmes over Mercer, Leonard over Duran, Pep over Saddler, Tunney over Dempsey, are examples of how a technician can beat a strong man. Of course, the examples can go the other way, and that is part of the fascination with boxing: knowledge vs. power; but technique has to make a difference, otherwise any muscle head could climb into the ring and wreak havoc.

Today's behemoth heavies are more successful than their past counterparts because many of them have better skills to go with the size and power.

 

Yes, see Watts-Davis Jr.

 

Technique. There are situations where athletic ability and instincts may prevail of course, but I think the knowledge to do something with maximum efficiency and the least amount of harmful risk is much more valuable.

I think of a solid technical base as a tool-kit. You can solve a deadly right hand with proper lateral movement; you can solve a stiff aggressor with a jab; you can't guarantee you'll solve anything just by throwing hard and/or fast once that doesn't work the first time.

 

Speed and power can negate any amount of technical perfection.
" It only takes one punch",as a despairing Jim Corbett shouted to a bloody , but unbowed Jim Jeffries.
In truth, I don't know the answer,and I suspect there is not a definitive one.

 

But can superior technique compensate for relative inferiority in speed and athleticism? It's an intriguing question.

I've heard that a slower boxer who has superb, intuitive grasp of timing can actually beat a faster guy (i.e., one who has quicker hands) to the punch. A fairly well known boxing coach told me this...that it's not so much hand speed as timing that determines who connects first.

 

It depends Roy Jones Jr did not have good technique but his athleticism made up for that.

 

it depends look at Jones in his prime.

 

Boxing is about skills first, not talent. Speed, for example, is the greatest gift a fighter can have but it can be overcome by several things found in the boxer's figurative tool box. That ain't a theory.

Everyone brings up Ali and Jones and Hamed as examples to somehow prove that talent is better than mastery of the fundamentals, but all three of them were exceptional talents. They are exceptions that prove the rule. What beat them? Superior athletes? No, sound strategy and fundamentals.

The vast majority of natual talent do not come back to the gym after a few sparring sessions. Once they realize that fast hands and good reflexes won't save them from concussions, they go back to basketball courts.