Unconventionalism Vs. Technical Prowess

The ones you mention became greats due to their ability to surprise their opponents with the occasional unconventional technique while maintaining a firm technically fundamental foundation. If we are talking either/or, I'd definitely go with technical prowess. Unconventional = flawed.

 

The three guys you mentioned were all wonderfully technically sound. They had supreme athletic ability that enabled them to do some things at times that were unconventional, but they were great because they were great technicians.

 

Someone like Leonard or Robinson wasn't exactly lacking technical proficiency. You can be very technically proficient and remain unorthodox.

 

I like the technically proficient, Boxer-Punchers.

Marco Antonio Barrera, Alexis Arguello, Gerry Penalosa, Orlando Canizales,Yuri arbachakov, etc.

 

agree very much with this and mcgrain stating the roy jones is the epitome of unorthodox

end of the day, when physical gifts leave, you have to be technically sound or you have nothing to fall back on. having said that, roy jones would not have been the same fighter WITH a reliance on technical soundness.

his unpredictability was his strength and i think he would have been a far lesser fighter had he made his style more conventional

 

I admire fighters like Mayweather, Hopkins, and Hearns, so I went with technically sound.

I'm not athletically gifted either.

 

Ali wasn't as technically sound as people make him sound. Like RJJ, he used his physical talents to cover the holes in his technique. And with time, like Jones, those holes became more exposed as his athleticism began to wane.

An unconventional style can be a big bonus. It makes preparation and training for a fight much tougher in some ways than an orthodox, technically sound boxer. Either way, the foundations of a style like that should still be rooted in good mastery of the basics.

This is my favorite overall style as well. Gans, Louis, and Arguello are some of my all time favorites.

 

Doesn't really matter to me as long as it works. I like unconventional fighters because they are fun to watch but if I had to choose a boxing style to use personally it would be textbook.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsRJdj8jbc&playnext_from=TL&videos=wMRqrvozmGU[/ame]

VS

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWcY0tt0xQo[/ame]

Who R U Picking?:think

 

i think it's tough to compare. they both had limitations and both had weaknesses that could be exploited by certain styles. jones looked better against limited opposition, louis was fantastic and able to adapt against better opponents. jones was reckless, louis was at times robotic. in a head to head fight, the winner is obvious. who had more skills though is imbeded a bit deeper

 

Nope, it's definitely Louis who wins on the skill front. Louis has some of the best combination work of all time, in terms of accuracy, power and speed. On top of that his defensive game was fundamentally very solid. He had a great inside and outside game.

 

technically? louis creams him but jones was possibly the most athletically gifted fighter of all time. speed and power, both of foot and hand, was all jones. his ability to create impossible, unexpected angles was something louis never had

if you wrote a textbook on perfect heavyweight boxing, it would read as a highlight reel of louis' career. but you could never write a book on jones: he was beyond what you could ever imagine a fighter to look like