I keep hearing about boxers that are slick such as Chad Dawson, Eddie Chambers, Joan Guzman, these boxers are also very skilled. What's the difference between them and someone like Wladimir Klitschko and Bernard Hopkins who are very skilled, but not slick.
seems like slick boxers rely a bit more on natural reflexes and physical quickness , where as someone who is more skilled uses years of experience and training so that what to do at certain times just becomes second nature.
He's slick because he has a "unique" boxing style, Teddy Atlus referred to him as a slickster, because he's unique and skilled at the same time too.
I don't consider Dawson and chambers to be slick, James Toney is slick, PBF is slick, and even Bhops can be slick, to me a slickster is someone who can't be touched.
to me a slickster is someone who rarely gets hit and has that special fluidity in all their punches and movements
PBF in his prime was DEFINITELY slick watch all his fights in 130. Later on his career he no longer was slick, just defensive, it was somewhat boring. PBF early in his career used to throw double left-hooks.
A slick fighter is a fighter that moves a lot giving lots of angles and hard to hit. Slipping, ducking. Skilled fighters are typically sound boxers who doesn't do much risky things.
bhop is a pretty slick fighter.. slick fighters have good style and fluidity, they make you miss, and make other fighters look bad. skilled boxers are good technically. good fundamentals, block/parry a lot of shots, good footwork. i unno, its kind of hard to describe the difference. there are a lot of similarities and it's also somewhat a matter of opinion.
Wladimir Klitschko is a sound boxer, he's an elite actually, no knock against him, but he's not slick.
Floyd Mayweather Jr. is no longer a slick smooth boxer, but watch his fights against Tony Pep, this is an example of slickness imo. I wish Mayweather can still fight like this. [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G2tST6a2fpI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G2tST6a2fpI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt] [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SWmCJhI80qY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SWmCJhI80qY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
simple, a slick boxer looks fluid, smooth and sharp doing many of the things a skilled boxer does in a very technical, strict, tight, perhaps even rigid way. in this way a slick boxer might also bend or break the fundamental rules of technical boxing to serve his slickness and succeed hugely in doing so--a prime roy jones jr. is the first example that comes to mind of a slick boxer. a slick boxer may or may not be a technical boxer and a technical boxer is almost never a slick boxer--think guzman, as the poster notes.
agreed...chambers is, maybe, tricky--using angles and a peek-a-boo defense--but he is too tense, too herky-jerky, too awkward to be slick. eddie is a good fighter, but not a slick boxer in any sense.
