When we say a fighter has great skills, what are we measuring? And do we limit the parameters of skills to textbook?
Despite what alot of people think, skills are whatever wins you a fight, not some perfect textbook form.
Well I ask because I always see that Roy Jones was not skillful, but simply athletic. However, as I watched Jones fight, I saw a very skilled fighter who tailored his skills around his athletic ability. The technical skill was still there, and in great quantity IMO. As he grew older, Jones refused to change his style despite his diminishing athletic ability, and his unorthodox style relied on that ability. I would like someone to graciously point out the skills that Jones lacked, which is why I first wanted to know what skills are.
I guess in boxing skills would encompass attributes like : ability to throw a multitude of different punches, defense, ring generalship, head movement, footwork, and adaptability during a match.
Ok, so with Jones, Hamed, and perhaps someone like Eubank, who were very unorthodox and are often thought of as less skilled than textbook fighters, where would you find fault in their respective games to say that they were "less skilled"?
The only area of their game with which I could "find fault", is with respect to their defenses. Both Roy Jones Jr. and Hamed had cat-like reflexes, many times they would simply jump out of the way of a punch rather than block it, this would sometimes make they appear awkward or off balance. As opposed to a Floyd Mayweather or Winky Wright, James Toney, those guys can stand right in fron of you and make you miss, or deflect the force of the punches. With head movement, shoulder rolls, and catching the punches on the gloves.
He kept his hands too low, which was ok in his prime because he was so fast. But when he slowed down, he got caught, and we all know what happened.
I've thought about this today, and I believe technical skills are the basics - throwing punches, punch variety, body punching, counter punching, catching punches, blocking punches, parrying punches, being able to fight on the inside as well as from outside, footwork, and head movement. When people say Roy Jones wasn't very "skilled," they couldn't be more wrong. He mastered all of the fundamental areas and could do them with amazing effectiveness. It would be more accurate to say he wasn't "textbook" but in the end, textbook or unorthodox...as long as they get the job done, one isn't better than the other.
Accuracy Punching power Blocking punches Foot speed Hand speed Ring generalship Dodging punches Landing combinations Pot shotting Counterpunching A solid chin Adaptability I count all those things as skills (there are alot more) , but I know on ESB thats not how it works, just my perception.
Certainly, and I agree. However, head movement and footwork are also part of defense, and Jones was incredible in that regard, rarely getting hit, and getting hit flush even less. For me, defense is about not getting hit. Textbook defense is perhaps keeping ones hands up. One can follow the textbook style and have their hands up properly and still be caught (Jones actually had his hand up when Tarver stopped him, punched around his guard). Also, Jones knew where to jump to get out of the way, as he rarely went straight back, which is a no no.
All the boxers have sills. Some of them more than others. Even Mayorga has skills. Of course, it is always easier to determine who is not really skillful. Winning fights does not translate into having great skills, and also a boxer who is really skillful might end up losing against a boxer who's not. Who ever said that RJJ did not have skills is a moron. Period. IMO you don't have to be a text book type of fighter to be really skillful, but it helps to follow those principles.