Is technique overrated and power underrated?

[Jip]

mayweather and ward are regarded as 2 of the most techniquly sound boxers since 20 years, floyd is arguably the greatest technicians ever, surely the best defensive boxer ever. in terms of technique not many boxers reach the level of floyd & ward.

yet they lost to guys with a litle bit more than average technique, but far away the level of a floyd mayweather. opposed to technique, these 3 guys had power. they were bigger, stronger and had more pop in their punches. kovalev won against ward, hurting him, knocking him down. castillo and maidana won against floyd, landing more punches, landing harder punches, roughing him up, castillo and maidana were physicly stronger, bigger punchers than floyd.

so my question is, is power underrated in fights, cause mostly the favoured boxer is the boxer with the better technique?

no wounder guys like robinson & tyson are so admired till this day, they possessed elite technique and elite power during their prime. a very rare combination. today i can think of only 2-3 guys with elite power/technique, inoue, gonzales and rigo.

[jezzamundo]

If anything I think it's the reverse - people make too much of a deal about punching power and not enough about skills - I would prefer the word skills over technique. Ali had neither great power nor technique, but he was immensely skilled, not to mention fit and tough. In fact, looking at most of the elite, all times greats throughout history, I would say the things most of them have in common is fantastic stamina, above average speed and an iron jaw. I would say that punching power comes after all of those things in terms of importance.

Interesting that you picked three fights where the stronger fighter officially lost - personally I had Castillo beating Floyd, Maidana-Floyd 1 a draw and Ward beating Kovalev by a single point.

[GPTM1403]

If anything I think it's the reverse - people make too much of a deal about punching power and not enough about skills - I would prefer the word skills over technique. Ali had neither great power nor technique, but he was immensely skilled, not to mention fit and tough. In fact, looking at most of the elite, all times greats throughout history, I would say the things most of them have in common is fantastic stamina, above average speed and an iron jaw. I would say that punching power comes after all of those things in terms of importance.

Interesting that you picked three fights where the stronger fighter officially lost - personally I had Castillo beating Floyd, Maidana-Floyd 1 a draw and Ward beating Kovalev by a single point.

have to agree, Andy Lee is a good example, people make the most of his ability to turn fights around with a single punch but he's getting beaten on points unless or until he does that. Ali is a good example of a guy who could box, could take a punch and could give one. I think the package has to be as a whole, someone like Golovkin gets underrated as a boxer because of how hard he hits and how good his chin is, but he's where he is because he has the skills to deliver those big punches. Someone like Martin Murray has the chin and the skills but one reason he hasn't been to the very top is he doesn't have the punch to deliver that last bit. Mayweather could hit as well, he just chose not to take chances and probably lost fans through his safety first approach.

[Jip]

If anything I think it's the reverse - people make too much of a deal about punching power and not enough about skills - I would prefer the word skills over technique. Ali had neither great power nor technique, but he was immensely skilled, not to mention fit and tough. In fact, looking at most of the elite, all times greats throughout history, I would say the things most of them have in common is fantastic stamina, above average speed and an iron jaw. I would say that punching power comes after all of those things in terms of importance.

Interesting that you picked three fights where the stronger fighter officially lost - personally I had Castillo beating Floyd, Maidana-Floyd 1 a draw and Ward beating Kovalev by a single point.

official doesnt mean anything to me, truth does.

[Jip]

If anything I think it's the reverse - people make too much of a deal about punching power and not enough about skills - I would prefer the word skills over technique. Ali had neither great power nor technique, but he was immensely skilled, not to mention fit and tough. In fact, looking at most of the elite, all times greats throughout history, I would say the things most of them have in common is fantastic stamina, above average speed and an iron jaw. I would say that punching power comes after all of those things in terms of importance.

Interesting that you picked three fights where the stronger fighter officially lost - personally I had Castillo beating Floyd, Maidana-Floyd 1 a draw and Ward beating Kovalev by a single point.

the most important factor is athletiscm. that athletiscm ables the boxer to move how he wants to move, footwork, variation of punches, upper body movemant, everything. always the most athletic boxer was the thoughest to beat, no matter robinson & ali, leonard & jones jr or later mayweather & pacquiao. take the athletic ability away that they had and they look like b level boxer. best example roy, ones he lost his athletiscm he kept getting kod.

official judging dont mean anything to me, my judging matters to me

[Lackeos]

yet they lost to guys with a litle bit more than average technique, but far away the level of a floyd mayweather.

That's incorrect. Ward is undefeated.

[MaxiBoxc]

Power is useless if you can't hit your opponent clearly.

[Badhusker]

Pretty stupid question really. If you don't think technique is more important, put an much stronger untrained boxer in the ring with a well trained boxer, and see what happens. They always have a shot because its boxing, but 9 out of 10 times he will get messed up.

By the way, I've always thought speed + strength= power, so a strong slow guy isn't normally effective.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Power is the most overrated of the attributes, followed by speed.

Technique and timing trump both.

[Jip]

Power is the most overrated of the attributes, followed by speed.

Technique and timing trump both.

speed + power > technique + timing

[jamesmcdonnell]

Power is the most overrated of the attributes, followed by speed.

Technique and timing trump both.

speed + power > technique + timing

Speed and power are very seldom combined though, that's why Tyson was so effective.

[GPTM1403]

Power is the most overrated of the attributes, followed by speed.

Technique and timing trump both.

speed + power > technique + timing

Speed and power are very seldom combined though, that's why Tyson was so effective.

plus technique and timing can have the same effect, you land cleanly on a guy who doesn't see it coming and walks into it then you can have the desired impact of dropping him, doesn't need a massive punch to do it.

[jamesmcdonnell]

speed + power > technique + timing

Speed and power are very seldom combined though, that's why Tyson was so effective.

plus technique and timing can have the same effect, you land cleanly on a guy who doesn't see it coming and walks into it then you can have the desired impact of dropping him, doesn't need a massive punch to do it.

Indeed. Punch placement and balance is what generates real power anyway. Tyson was a very accurate puncher in his heyday, they were like heat seeking missiles.

[man]

i am not sure i would call it technique. to
me ray leonard was a technically way more
brilliant fighter than floyd, while floyd was
the better defender.

i do think the boxing crowd in recent has
overall changed over the last hundred years
from adoring the puncher to appreciating
the boxer. but with floyd just avoid being
hit clean became like making a point in
itself and i for one believe this has gone
too far already.

destructive boxing gets too much credit
these days in my opinion. best example
for me is floyd-manny, which was very
close in my eyes, while most others see
a master class executed by mayweather.

[Jip]

i am not sure i would call it technique. to
me ray leonard was a technically way more
brilliant fighter than floyd, while floyd was
the better defender.

i do think the boxing crowd in recent has
overall changed over the last hundred years
from adoring the puncher to appreciating
the boxer. but with floyd just avoid being
hit clean became like making a point in
itself and i for one believe this has gone
too far already.

destructive boxing gets too much credit
these days in my opinion. best example
for me is floyd-manny, which was very
close in my eyes, while most others see
a master class executed by mayweather.

i think floyd was techniquy better than ray, but ray was faster and more athletic and 100 % teh harder puncher.

[man]

i think floyd was techniquy better than ray, but ray was faster and more athletic and 100 % teh harder puncher.

maybe you are right, but floyd applied
his technique primarily defensively, while
ray was trying to conquer his opponent
in almost every fight, thus taking way
more risks.

[jezzamundo]

Power is the most overrated of the attributes, followed by speed.

Technique and timing trump both.

speed + power > technique + timing

If that were true JMM would have had no hope against Manny Paxquiao.

[jezzamundo]

Pretty stupid question really. If you don't think technique is more important, put an much stronger untrained boxer in the ring with a well trained boxer, and see what happens. They always have a shot because its boxing, but 9 out of 10 times he will get messed up.

By the way, I've always thought speed + strength= power, so a strong slow guy isn't normally effective.

I think there's more at play in determining howcbig a puncher someone is. I say from my own experience - I've been told from sparring and training in a boxing gym that I have a very hard punch - I was a super welterweight and regularly sparred with guys up to light heavyweight and could always get respect with my power (including dropping guys bigger and better than me) but I was never fast or physically strong, just explosive and powerful.

[Badhusker]

Pretty stupid question really. If you don't think technique is more important, put an much stronger untrained boxer in the ring with a well trained boxer, and see what happens. They always have a shot because its boxing, but 9 out of 10 times he will get messed up.

By the way, I've always thought speed + strength= power, so a strong slow guy isn't normally effective.

I think there's more at play in determining howcbig a puncher someone is. I say from my own experience - I've been told from sparring and training in a boxing gym that I have a very hard punch - I was a super welterweight and regularly sparred with guys up to light heavyweight and could always get respect with my power (including dropping guys bigger and better than me) but I was never fast or physically strong, just explosive and powerful.

I would say that in order to do what you did, I am guessing that you also had very correct technique to make your punches count, and may have been faster than you give yourself credit for. Bigger guys that are strong that throw wide arm punches, for example, don't have near the effect that they could if thrown correctly.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Technique generates power, look at Duran.

[jezzamundo]

Pretty stupid question really. If you don't think technique is more important, put an much stronger untrained boxer in the ring with a well trained boxer, and see what happens. They always have a shot because its boxing, but 9 out of 10 times he will get messed up.

By the way, I've always thought speed + strength= power, so a strong slow guy isn't normally effective.

I think there's more at play in determining howcbig a puncher someone is. I say from my own experience - I've been told from sparring and training in a boxing gym that I have a very hard punch - I was a super welterweight and regularly sparred with guys up to light heavyweight and could always get respect with my power (including dropping guys bigger and better than me) but I was never fast or physically strong, just explosive and powerful.

I would say that in order to do what you did, I am guessing that you also had very correct technique to make your punches count, and may have been faster than you give yourself credit for. Bigger guys that are strong that throw wide arm punches, for example, don't have near the effect that they could if thrown correctly.

Technique is certainly part of it, but it's also true to say that punchers are born, not made. I'm not slow, but definitely not fast-handed and I can't lift heavy weights, but I've always done well at things requiring explosive power, such as sprinting, long jump, throwing a baseball etc. That said, my power always faded fast with my stamina, so I wasn't a heavy-handed guy either.

[Jip]

Technique generates power, look at Duran.

technic aside,t hat dude was natural strong. just born a puncher.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Technique generates power, look at Duran.

technic aside,t hat dude was natural strong. just born a puncher.

He was dropping 168 pound guys in his 40's because of his technique and timing. Joe Louis is another one.