What are the differences between a textbook fighter and a technical fighter?

It depends how you define, i don't think there's much of a difference. Like McGrain said on my thead, fundamentals hold a different definition to technical skills. Fundamentals meaning the basics imo, whereas an all time great technician is a boxer who has skills in ever department you can list. That's my brief take.

 

I never really thought much of a difference between the two.

Any time either phrase is mentioned, I think of the same thing.

 

The same in many ways, although a great technical fighter will extend a "text-book" (i.e. fundamentally solid) approach to more than just the rudiments of boxing you might teach an amateur. So, for instance, Kelly Pavlik would be a good technician in terms of just doing the basics in the proper fundamental way, but Bernard Hopkins was a great technician in that he could extend proper fundamental execution to more than just the jab-right, but to feinting, positioning, defence etc.

In other words: Great technical fighting is like text-book fighting extended to the advanced skill levels of the game. Just because it's text-book doesn't mean you have to stick to the basic aspects of the game.

 

basic skills you apply to win. standard but effective.

technical is more of a science behind the basic skills... the more gifted.

 

those who have skills do, those who have fundamentals teach

 

most of the defensively skilled are technicians in the game.

the know how to not get hit in the middle of fighting different style fighters

 

Textbook boxing = finnishing school
Technician = PHD

 

I like to think of it as Holmes is text book whilst Ali is technical

 

Ali is not technical.

 

Holyfield looked like a technician against Valuev.

 

Yes.