Is Technical Perfection More Important Than Speed/Power?

Yeah i could have worded it abit better, a slow person will never be fast, a person with a weak punch will never be a power puncher however a person with poor technique could still become a technical expert to a degree.

 

Perhaps the best way to look at it would be on a continuum. Jones has some technical prowess -as long as he has been boxing, he had to at least have picked some up accidentally at least!

But Jones really cannot be termed a technician. He could put technically-sound hooks and crosses together exceptionally well, his balance was good, he understood range, and could even slip shots very well. He showed all of that against Tate. Wlad fights like Frankenstein, but his jab and right are technically perfect.

Does Wlad's mastery of a few punches make him a technician?

Even those technically-sound things that Jones did were partly due to athleticism as well -balance for example, range, slipping shots to some degree.

Shouldn't more be required? Most amateurs learn how to throw straight punches and balance within weeks. How many times did Jones weave under a shot and come up with a counter at an angle? In the Tate fight, he went kind of under a left, but in the wrong direction. What'd he do against the ropes? He did then what he still does -an Ali-imitation. Squaring off, leaning on the ropes, high guard, giving up his ribs. That is bad technique. I'm sure you'd agree that just because he got away with it doesn't make it good technique.

The proof against his being a technician is very strong. I know you know this already. You can actually see his short shelf-life in that Tate fight. He is doing now what he did then, only slower and without the output. What's changed? Nothing really.

The seeds of his humiliation were planted in precisely those spectacular knockouts that we all celebrated. If he built a foundation in fundamentals instead of relying on fleeting youthful vigor, his Legs of Stone would not have to be so catastrophic.

Question: What is Jones today?

Answer: He's Ali without the guile and without the chin...!

 

good point and i was struggling with the phrasing. more accurately may be the top echelon of both speed and technique respectively.

nonetheless, despite pac's technique (which is top class) he relies primarily on natural skills.

marquez, despite clearly being a top class athlete, relies primarily on technical prowess.

neither has ever proven, imo, better than the other

 

People are severely underrating Jones's skills.

 

he boxed against sugar boy maligna, vinny paz (for some reason) and sporatically against numerous opponents like reggie johnson that he couldn't overwhelm

he had technical skills, just didn't need them until his physical attributes had completely eroded at which case he was found wanting

 

:deal

 

To use a fighter like Tyson again as an example, no matter how sound in fundamentals he was, he still couldnt accomplish what he did without the speed he possessed. Sound fundamentals dont allow fighters to dominate with massive deficiencies such as height and reach, especially against tall mobile outside boxers which he faced often.

The best foundation is speed because fundamentals are the easiest things to teach and they dont have to be perfect in a fighter who possesses spectacular speed. Thats the underlying point of my post.

 

Good thread. In terms of fighting tall I think you could qualify Wlad as a technician even though he does some things to dislike (Jumping straight back with arm-extended in reaction to an attack, for example).

 

So is are likes of JMM and to an extent Ali. Although he had great speed he lacked power and was arguably the best heavyweight of all time. I mean how many of your top 20 let alone 10 all time p4p were devasting punchers like Tyson or Tito? Few if any. I think Power is important, however no match for speed or 'technical perfection'

 

in going through the thread i like stonehands overall point and tone.

I would personally say that neither is more important but you can't teach speed/power...you can teach technical perfection. if someone walks into the gym you CANNOT neglect the basics and instruction has to focus on the techniques

i would assume that even incredible atheletes learned the basics first and most of them improvised and altered their styles later.

speed and power get you far, depending on how much of each you have. earnie shavers might have had more power and slight better technique than foreman but was never able to reach to top. it's a combination of technique and physical attributes, and rarely in equal portion, that make the very best fighters.

if i had to pick, i wouldn't. i could practice technique for years, i'm not a high enough level athlete to compete as a pro boxer. on the other hand, a great rugby player isn't **** as a boxer unless he committs to learning the craft. you can't seperate the two

 

So you would argue that, speed or spectacular speed, is "more important" than advanced technique. "Speed replaces craft."

...NOTHING replaces craft!

Don't you think that the poor craft of so many so-called contenders today can be laid at the feet of your position? American trainers are all about flash and style and overlook -or don't understand- substance.

We agree that speed is important, man. Speed kills, yes indeed. And it's hard to overcome if you don't know what you're doing. There is a way to fight speed -one way- and it's rooted in craft. Vernon at 2:28...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kehIfR4uZCo[/ame]

 

A good example, but Forrest was rather tall and long.

I agree with your description of Mosley (Or are your idea of fighters nowadays). What's interesting to note is that Futch said Mosley was the most promising upcoming fighter before he died.

 

Tall and long helps, but Vernon was a boxer-puncher who understood his craft and that's why he fared so well.

I don't see Mosley as a pure athlete. Though he's not a technician either. That clip was just to emphasize through Vernon's words, how craft defeats speed.

 

Definitely agree. But being tall and long helped make for a good style matchup for Forrest. Had he been shrunken down he probably would've won regardless because of your point, but because he wasn't I don't think it's the best example... that's all.

 

Fair enough.