"Technique"

Differences in terms of punching technique are quite substantial. Tyson's hooks and uppercuts were different from Byrd's. Also the Tyson jab was a hard step in jab, whereas byrd often threw light flicking.

Defense, you know for example how Tyson ducked under the left hook that is quite different from Byrd. Prime Tyson slipped punches like the hook or the jab going forward and was in poistion to throw back due to feet positioning.

 

I think all styles, strategies and tactics should be formed around solid boxing fundamentals. If you have good technique to begin with you can play with your style to accommodate your natural physical attributes and explore strategies and tactics with more confidence.

 

No, textbook technique is textbook because it's tried and tested. You can be effective even if you disregard it, but you will be more effective if you don't.

Of course, there are minor variations, but if you manage to incorporate the major tenants you will be more effective than if you don't. If you fight like Loma you'll be more succesful than if you fight like Nunn.
I have seen fighters be punished because they stray from the textbook (Nunn being one), but I have yet to see one be punished because he follows it.

 

Byrd an arm puncher? Yes, absolutely. For the most part.
Also he mostly "punched" without even bothering to make a fist. He slapped and back-handed.
I'd say he's the antithesis of Tyson in punching technique.

 

Some of the best fighters are successful precisely (or partly) because of the unusual/individualised things they do. By disregarding certain orthodoxies they allow themselves room to employ their unusual and special tools.
Obviously this works for them because they have elite boxing intelligence and other talents.

All fighters get punished, whether they follow the textbook or not. The textbook doesn't provide timing and intellgence etc.

Some fighters have more flaws than others. But if you're looking at a successful top fighter and you're seeing loads of "technique" flaws, you can be sure he makes it up elsewhere.
That's not to say some of the top fighter's shoudn't be working to "iron out" the flaws, but that in many cases concentrating on that and going 100% textbook will in fact impede their effectiveness.

It's hard to argue with results, success and greatness.

 

Ok. But then it's not that they had different styles of technique (to go back to what I recall was the original argument) - it's that Tyson had better punching technique than Byrd.

 

Of course there has to be room for maneuver. Like for example lowering your left to lure the opponent to lead and then counter him. You also have the frequent use of the lead hand as range finder/distracter instead of a classic jab. And that works even better if it's lead foot against lead foot (lefty vs righty). And a "Philly guard" isn't something I would typically recommend, but it is useful for those talented enough to use it effectively.

But holding your hands at the waist and be caught with big left hooks like Nunn or Ali - there's not much reason to find there besides a certain carelessness. Guys with great natural talent that took some short cuts.

All fighters get hit, yes, but that's not that same as being punished. I have often seen fighters take a devastating punch because their hands are low, their chin up, them being off balance etc - i e punches they could have at the very least mitigated by having their guard and feet in the correct position. But I have never said to myself "if only he hadn't had that tight guard, tucked chin and perfect balance in his stance, he wouldn't have taken that punch".

It is. And most of the really successful fighters are quite text book, with some minor variations.

Sure, it's exceedingly difficult to keep track of your hands, feet and chin all the time, but they who manage it the best are usually among the most successful.

 

But many are actually successful despite those things...

 

I do not see the point or distinction. Byrd and Tyson do have different punching techniques.
The punching technique of tyson also generates more power.

 

Yep

 

Obviously.

 

But who do you think would have been hurt by being more textbook?

Let's say Ali had the textbook technique of Ricardo Lopez. How could that conceivable have hurt him? What was it with Ali's leaning back and low hands that made him more successful than he would have been with Lopez' more textbook technique? Or even only that of say Holmes or Holyfield?

 

Marciano?

 

In what way?