Wake up people . . . there's no such thing as technically perfect fighter. All fighters have flaws . . . reason why all fighters gets bruises, lumps, marked face or even bloodied. That should be repraised to "close to being perfect".:hey
All you guys picking Mayweather - what is it about his footwork/head movement/glove positioning that you find technically perfect? Very, very efficient and effective but you won't find it in any manual. Some of the other calls are great though.
"Most technically perfect". I think that's pretty straigt forward, even though it doesn't make a huge amount of sense. I'm not suggesting a technically perfect fighter exsists, just starting a conversation about technical excellence in active fighters.
Well said; though I wouldn't put Hopkins in with Toney and Mayweather. I also think fluidity isn't neccesary for near-technical perfection, but this is an excellent post... The guys picking Mayweather, i'm intrigued - why? Care to explain your position?
LOL nobodys perfect!!!! best technically would be much appropriate i should say and thats pbf for sure, second would be that guy who ktfo darchinyan.
For punching I think you are absolutley right. Damn!, still loads of guys picking PBF without saying why!
Hey **** you newbie . . . i know how to read **** head. Is there an "arse" word in the dictionary? Now you shut the **** up.:-(
