Mastering a certain style of boxing- let's break down the technical factors

Glad you liked it dpw

 

On Canto, i think it's undoubted that his ability was the major factor of his success relevant to his boxing style. He used his size to his advantage, sure, he would be compact when turning a man to make himself minimal as atarget. But if he was tall and rangy and blessed with the same skillset he'd use such attributes to his advantage as well, his skill was sublime. His dimensions came after.

 

Good question, i'm sure i could find you one, is that a challenge?

 

Thanks for the compliment on the thread there.

On his boxing game, well i haven't seen that fight. But i think his jab on the outside was very nice, it really was one of the great tools in terms of dictating range. And with footwork as good as that, whether you're on all out offense or trying to box outside, you're going to be able to put it to use.

 

In response to GPater, i know Red Cobra won't like this. But this is a debate of the mastering of necessary techniques that aggrigate overall mastery to a degree that elevates the practicing fighter to a status of 'master' of his particular style of fighting, from a technical standpoint. (yes that dictionary tasted good)

So i would say Carlos Monzon. What would you even label his style? It's hard to give it a label imo, box-puncher? Mid-ring general? i think it's a cop out to call someone a mid-ring general, sometimes it just means you're not sure what their style was so you slap that label on them. Either way, he wasn't a technical supremo in my honest opinion. Sure he controlled range as good as anyone, had one of the best jabs we've ever had the privelege of viewing, and physically was an animal in terms of strength. But i can;t label him a master in technical terms personally. That's not to knock him as an effective fighter and a great champion. You'll hardly ever see me picking someone over him head to head at 160.

Also, by the same token, Roy Jones, What's he? He's versatile, he's a pure boxer, he's a slugger. In any of his chosen styles of fighting, he's a technical midget.

Both are very great regardless. Did i hit a winner Greg?

 

I'd like to see a Floyd Patterson fan break down him as a slugger if they would do the honours. He's about as technical as it gets in terms of that fighting style for me.

 

What about Pacquiao? Tremendously great. I don't think he's a technical master in enough areas to get the nod. He's improved in many areas, we have that rammed down our necks constantly. It's true to a degree, my opinion is that his real area of improvement since the Barrera fight is his composure, he's more calm and taking a look at his man these days rather than being a wildman. What's improved technically? Footwork for sure, the way he pivots on the heel, and for a southpaw, it causes so much problems for orthodox fighters. But is he great inside technically? Not for me. Is he a great combo hitter technically? No. Great defense? Don't make me howl.

I'll ignore anyone (Pachilles and his girlfriends) that attack me for underrating Pacquiao as a fighter, that hasn;t happened here. He's very very great and as deadly as a whirlwind, which he fights like.

 

I'd agree fully on tactical, i think his multi-directional mobility was very good, and it's the dictacting of the pace of the bout that really sets him apart as a tactician for me. Technically i just don't see that. Not to say he's poor in that regard, but we're talking mastery. Sure, we can say he was a 'long range boxer', but that's a bit like what i did with Olivares, labelling him simply an 'aggressor', and look, McGrain called me put immediately. We should be more specific i think, and like i said, i don't see him as a technical supremo in any exclusive regard myself. You look at the way Kalambay did itfor example, the technique is far more honed in my opinion. Just my opinion. Of course Monzon would eat Kalambay whole in a fight though.

 

It's by no means debatable that he was a master. And proving that level of mastery against such good opposition as well.