Technique vs natural talent

speed and strength aren't talents, you will have an aptitude for a sport, or good reflexes, or make fast gains on your strength, or be especially fast throughout right from the start, but I'll put it this way, your local dustman might be the most talented boxer that never was.
talent needs nurturing and you are kidding yourself if you think talent gets you anywhere without hard, hard work.
boxing is slightly different in that there are individual styles and you are faced with a live opponent, but thats not to say that this talent doesn't need an incredible amount of time. never heard of a roy jones who doesn't train or hasn't trained for a very long time brutally.

 

You ask some wierd, pointless questions.

 

So what do you get out of this question? Nothing. Even if you have natural talent you still have to train technique, you'll just be able to pick it up faster.

So what's your point?

 

Do you maybe want us to say talent counts for everything and if you are not awesome from day one save yourself the energy and go back to the couch?
Ain't happeneing, picachu!

 

Technique is very important, having a natural ability isn't although it would help a lot. Just because I'm born with speed and power does not mean I'll become a good boxer, but I could become a good boxer without those natural attributes if I traied a lot.

You can't possibly compare the importance of either as they're not related. Same as your other question "Isometrics vs Plyos".

 

Technique is always going to be more important.

It's when you have a guy who learns the technique but has ZERO athletic ability that the natural attributes come in. Most of us have at least some attributes that aren't abysmal.

Speed, toughness, strength, quick recovery, balance, etc. can all be improved. Starting out in boxing already possessing these attributes makes it easier on you. Thus, you're more likely to continue in the sport.

But to be honest, I've never seen anyone come in who was just unathletic all-around and turn themselves around into a good boxer. Seen plenty of athletic guys not make it either.

 

it's a little bit round about but this is how the topic can be somewhat useful.

instead of technique let's call it mechanical athlete (technique is used by both) vs natural talent (someone that can improvise easily).

now close your eyes and imagine you are boxing. do you see your hands hitting the bag or your opponent (1st person point of view) or do you see yourself like you're watching tv (3rd person pov)? hopefully it's not 2nd person b/c now you're punching yourself in the face, lol.

if you are a 1st person viewer you are most likely a mechanical learner and is best to do high repititions. if you see yourself like on tv then you are most likely a vicarious learner who will pick things up by watching and mimicking (make sure you are mimicking high quality skills).

 

If you don't work your technique hard you are just cutting corners and cheating yourself no matter how naturally talented you are. When Emanuel Steward took over Wlad the first thing he did was go back to the very basics, starting with simple footwork. The technique is the foundation. The rest is the cream on the cake.

 

Anything can be developed.

 

Bruce lee says to acquire natural talent you have to do it unnaturally in style (i.e. force it).

And to acquire scientific technique you have to do it without thinking (naturally).



Basically means to be natural doing the scientific.

Or calculating what you do naturally.

 

It’s stupid really:

1. 60/40 Boxer
2. 50/50
3. 70/30 Boxer
4. 80/20 Boxer
5. 90/10 Boxer
6. 100/0 Boxer
7. 60/40 Puncher
8. 70/30 Puncher
9. 80/20 Puncher
10. 90/10 Puncher
11. 100/0 Puncher

 

It’s how well a boxer can punch......... and how well a puncher can box.

Considering all ability is equal.