Definition of boxing technique

[RonnyJ]

a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure

a skilful or efficient way of doing or achieving something.

these are definitions by google when you type technique. the most efficient way to box is to land a punch on your opponent and your opponent not landing a punch on you. thats the goal, whoever does this the best is the most techniqule boxer.

what irritates me a bit is, there seem to be different oppinions on boxing technique. for example prime roy jones jr got hit less or similar very little as floyd mayweather, but floyd gets praised a genius technician and roy not.

i guess the difference is the technique you use, if it is only by reflexes, athletic or by classic boxing techniques, such as head movemant, dipping under an opponents punch, shoulder roll etc..

so what is the difference between for example floyd and roy and why floyd was efficient in later years and roy not. or is it more a question of training and being more importantly staying athletic, roy was getting less athletic over the years, while floyd stayed athletic until the end. huge reason why floyd stayed very athletic for so long is that he was known to be a warrior inside the gym, not many boxer trained as dedicated as floyd, another reason why manny at this age is so good, because he same as floyd is also known as a training lunatic!

whats your take?

[candyslim]

When someone is described as a great boxer, one of the factors that contribute to that evaluation is their speed (handspeed/footspeed/reflexes). Now that's fair enough, speed is a very valuable asset, but it can be mistaken for technique and can even be the enemy of technique in that if you're really fast you may not feel you need to develop your technique.

I love to watch a fighter who has great technique who is not especially quick, someone who can stay in the pocket within punching range of his opponent, and still manage to avoid the vast majority of punches thrown at him. Usyk would be a current example of such a fighter.

In judo they have a practice called 'randori' where you take on a queue of opponents one after the other. By the time you've dealt with six or seven you're physically knackered, all you have left is technique and it's an excellent method of promoting the development of it.

In boxing you lose your speed as you get older and you are forced to rely more on technique. Depending on how good your technique is compared to your speed and reflexes is likely going to determine how long you're going to be effective as the ageing process takes hold. RJJ has admitted that's why his own deterioration was so marked.

[Onetimeonly]

You answered your own question. Floyd had great technique, Roy had an athleticism, like Ali, that didn't require technique. Roy didn't have Floyd's toughness or confidence was the bigger difference between them.

[RonnyJ]

You answered your own question. Floyd had great technique, Roy had an athleticism, like Ali, that didn't require technique. Roy didn't have Floyd's toughness or confidence was the bigger difference between them.

the point is, athletic equals technique, cause threw being athletic you have better reflexes, you move your body better, your footwork is better. you get my point.

technique means in boxing, land and not get landed. in his prime opponents rarly landed on roy, so he had great technique.

you right, floyd was more tough and confident than roy. also he trained harder.

[RonnyJ]

When someone is described as a great boxer, one of the factors that contribute to that evaluation is their speed (handspeed/footspeed/reflexes). Now that's fair enough, speed is a very valuable asset, but it can be mistaken for technique and can even be the enemy of technique in that if you're really fast you may not feel you need to develop your technique.

I love to watch a fighter who has great technique who is not especially quick, someone who can stay in the pocket within punching range of his opponent, and still manage to avoid the vast majority of punches thrown at him. Usyk would be a current example of such a fighter.

In judo they have a practice called 'randori' where you take on a queue of opponents one after the other. By the time you've dealt with six or seven you're physically knackered, all you have left is technique and it's an excellent method of promoting the development of it.

In boxing you lose your speed as you get older and you are forced to rely more on technique. Depending on how good your technique is compared to your speed and reflexes is likely going to determine how long you're going to be effective as the ageing process takes hold. RJJ has admitted that's why his own deterioration was so marked.

very good post candy!

so technique is the moves you make to land a punch or dodge a punch. so the best boxer is the one who has the combination of highest technique (textbook boxing skills) and highest athletic body.

[littlepug]

You answered your own question. Floyd had great technique, Roy had an athleticism, like Ali, that didn't require technique. Roy didn't have Floyd's toughness or confidence was the bigger difference between them.

the point is, athletic equals technique, cause threw being athletic you have better reflexes, you move your body better, your footwork is better. you get my point.

technique means in boxing, land and not get landed. in his prime opponents rarly landed on roy, so he had great technique.

you right, floyd was more tough and confident than roy. also he trained harder.

I disagree, athleticism has nothing to do with technique, athleticism may enable you do certain things like box with your hand low or double and triple up on your punches or throw punches from odd angles but technique is the proper application of releasing punches effectively and efficiently to hit the desired target with the least risk to yourself, Hamed v Barrera is a good example of athleticism v technique.

[Onetimeonly]

You answered your own question. Floyd had great technique, Roy had an athleticism, like Ali, that didn't require technique. Roy didn't have Floyd's toughness or confidence was the bigger difference between them.

the point is, athletic equals technique, cause threw being athletic you have better reflexes, you move your body better, your footwork is better. you get my point.

technique means in boxing, land and not get landed. in his prime opponents rarly landed on roy, so he had great technique.

you right, floyd was more tough and confident than roy. also he trained harder.

Jesus you're stupid, and I don't mean sometimes, you're rock sinking stupid with no willingness to learn. Don't quote me again assface.

[RonnyJ]

the point is, athletic equals technique, cause threw being athletic you have better reflexes, you move your body better, your footwork is better. you get my point.

technique means in boxing, land and not get landed. in his prime opponents rarly landed on roy, so he had great technique.

you right, floyd was more tough and confident than roy. also he trained harder.

Jesus you're stupid, and I don't mean sometimes, you're rock sinking stupid with no willingness to learn. Don't quote me again assface.

you in a good mood today

[RonnyJ]

the point is, athletic equals technique, cause threw being athletic you have better reflexes, you move your body better, your footwork is better. you get my point.

technique means in boxing, land and not get landed. in his prime opponents rarly landed on roy, so he had great technique.

you right, floyd was more tough and confident than roy. also he trained harder.

I disagree, athleticism has nothing to do with technique, athleticism may enable you do certain things like box with your hand low or double and triple up on your punches or throw punches from odd angles but technique is the proper application of releasing punches effectively and efficiently to hit the desired target with the least risk to yourself, Hamed v Barrera is a good example of athleticism v technique.

being athletic makes technique easier. cause like you said, it enables things....

technique means making things right to not get hit, but if you totaly unathletic, than you cant dot it effectivly. there is a huge difference between athletic young toney and fat toney.

[candyslim]

When someone is described as a great boxer, one of the factors that contribute to that evaluation is their speed (handspeed/footspeed/reflexes). Now that's fair enough, speed is a very valuable asset, but it can be mistaken for technique and can even be the enemy of technique in that if you're really fast you may not feel you need to develop your technique.

I love to watch a fighter who has great technique who is not especially quick, someone who can stay in the pocket within punching range of his opponent, and still manage to avoid the vast majority of punches thrown at him. Usyk would be a current example of such a fighter.

In judo they have a practice called 'randori' where you take on a queue of opponents one after the other. By the time you've dealt with six or seven you're physically knackered, all you have left is technique and it's an excellent method of promoting the development of it.

In boxing you lose your speed as you get older and you are forced to rely more on technique. Depending on how good your technique is compared to your speed and reflexes is likely going to determine how long you're going to be effective as the ageing process takes hold. RJJ has admitted that's why his own deterioration was so marked.

very good post candy!

so technique is the moves you make to land a punch or dodge a punch. so the best boxer is the one who has the combination of highest technique (textbook boxing skills) and highest athletic body.

Well I wouldn't put it quite like that if mainly because I'm unsure about the definition of 'athleticism'. I mean I have a basic idea but it seems to me to be an 'umbrella term' that has different components. For example is it possible to have great athleticism without being fast, or alternatively without having excellent muscular strength? I suspect the answer to both questions is 'yes' which is why I prefer to talk about those components individually.

There are a number of factors besides technique and speed that go toward 'the build' of the never-been-seen perfect boxer. There's power, stamina, endurance, punch resistance, having no tendency to getting cut, and that's before you get to psychological factors, such as mental fortitude, determination/will to win, self-belief, courage, affinity or aversion to training etc.

Take Chris Arreola. A respected heavyweight who has been competitive in title challenges. Now I doubt his family even would claim him to be a technically adept boxer, or one who possesses an abundance of speed (hand or foot) I'm pretty sure he would not be described as 'athletic' either, but he is blessed with enough of those other attributes I mentioned to be regarded as a respectable and solid contender.

[littlepug]

I disagree, athleticism has nothing to do with technique, athleticism may enable you do certain things like box with your hand low or double and triple up on your punches or throw punches from odd angles but technique is the proper application of releasing punches effectively and efficiently to hit the desired target with the least risk to yourself, Hamed v Barrera is a good example of athleticism v technique.

being athletic makes technique easier. cause like you said, it enables things....

technique means making things right to not get hit, but if you totaly unathletic, than you cant dot it effectivly. there is a huge difference between athletic young toney and fat toney.

Not trying to be argumentative but again I disagree that athleticism makes correct technique easier, what it does do however is make correct technique more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, athleticism in boxing seems more like a licence to be unorthodox and break the normal “rules” of correct technique, it doesn’t matter how slow or with how much grace you throw your shots it’s either technically correct or it isn’t, Lewis had a better looking jab than Bruno but it wasn’t anymore technically correct.

[RonnyJ]

very good post candy!

so technique is the moves you make to land a punch or dodge a punch. so the best boxer is the one who has the combination of highest technique (textbook boxing skills) and highest athletic body.

Well I wouldn't put it quite like that if mainly because I'm unsure about the definition of 'athleticism'. I mean I have a basic idea but it seems to me to be an 'umbrella term' that has different components. For example is it possible to have great athleticism without being fast, or alternatively without having excellent muscular strength? I suspect the answer to both questions is 'yes' which is why I prefer to talk about those components individually.

There are a number of factors besides technique and speed that go toward 'the build' of the never-been-seen perfect boxer. There's power, stamina, endurance, punch resistance, having no tendency to getting cut, and that's before you get to psychological factors, such as mental fortitude, determination/will to win, self-belief, courage, affinity or aversion to training etc.

Take Chris Arreola. A respected heavyweight who has been competitive in title challenges. Now I doubt his family even would claim him to be a technically adept boxer, or one who possesses an abundance of speed (hand or foot) I'm pretty sure he would not be described as 'athletic' either, but he is blessed with enough of those other attributes I mentioned to be regarded as a respectable and solid contender.

Athletic meaning:
Physicly strong/fit/active

I would add fast and agile!

The more athletic you are, the faster,
more agile, stronger you are.

Perfect example 90s jones. Super athletic super speed super reflexes super agile etc

You right. Good post of yours. Mental side, courage and the others factors u mentioned also play a important factors in describing the non existing perfect boxer.

Jones athletic body
Tyson's chin
Floyd's technique
Manny's stamina
and Morales courage would be very close to the status perfect boxer.

[candyslim]

So if you're fit, active, fast and agile but lacking physical strength are you athletic?

What if you lack strength and agility but you're still, fit, fast and active?

Do you begin to see what I mean about not being clear about the definition?

[Cent0089]

Speed, timing, accuracy, strength, punching power, footwork, upper body movement, head movement, defense and reflexes, toughness, chin, resistance, will, stamina, discipline. Boxing is one of most complete sport in world.

[RonnyJ]

So if you're fit, active, fast and agile but lacking physical strength are you athletic?

What if you lack strength and agility but you're still, fit, fast and active?

Do you begin to see what I mean about not being clear about the definition?

You right. The definition isnt clear.

Athletic is also complex. For example just because you are athletic in one sport doesnt mean yiu athletic in a different sport, i doubt cristiano ronaldo who is arguably footballs most athletic player would do well in the NBA and LeBron James arguably NBA's most athletic player would not be a great swimmer on olympic level, while sometimes humans are athletic in a lot of sports, obviously similar sports. Like if you an elite 100 m sprinter chances are high that you be good at long jump or as a wide receiver in the NFL, imagine prime bolt catching from mahomes. I doubt he d be a atg NFL player but he d be good

[RonnyJ]

Speed, timing, accuracy, strength, punching power, footwork, upper body movement, head movement, defense and reflexes, toughness, chin, resistance, will, stamina, discipline. Boxing is one of most complete sport in world.

To me the 1 sport in the world.

By far

[littlepug]

Speed, timing, accuracy, strength, punching power, footwork, upper body movement, head movement, defense and reflexes, toughness, chin, resistance, will, stamina, discipline. Boxing is one of most complete sport in world.

To me the 1 sport in the world.

By far

To that I will agree

[RonnyJ]

To me the 1 sport in the world.

By far

To that I will agree

No sport is full of live like boxing. 99,9 %, win or lose, who cares, $ counts and at the end it is just a game.

Boxing is that 0,1 % where it is not just a game. Not just a win or a loss. Sometimes its life or death. Its my courage against your courage.
On top nothing on tv looks as spectacular as a good boxing fight!

[littlepug]

To that I will agree

No sport is full of live like boxing. 99,9 %, win or lose, who cares, $ counts and at the end it is just a game.

Boxing is that 0,1 % where it is not just a game. Not just a win or a loss. Sometimes its life or death. Its my courage against your courage.
On top nothing on tv looks as spectacular as a good boxing fight!

Yep. it’s proper living in the moment stuff where will can beat skill on a given night, a true test of character, I salute everyone that steps into the 4 corners of truth

[RonnyJ]

No sport is full of live like boxing. 99,9 %, win or lose, who cares, $ counts and at the end it is just a game.

Boxing is that 0,1 % where it is not just a game. Not just a win or a loss. Sometimes its life or death. Its my courage against your courage.
On top nothing on tv looks as spectacular as a good boxing fight!

Yep. it’s proper living in the moment stuff where will can beat skill on a given night, a true test of character, I salute everyone that steps into the 4 corners of truth

Well said!!!

[Heretic]

Lomachenko

[ewenhay]

Surely technique is the ability to consistently execute punches correctly?

[oogiebe]

Surely technique is the ability to consistently execute punches correctly?

And footwork to avoid punches and create angles and control distance; effective combinations; etc. Head movement, etc. IQ example is knowing when to block with your glove(s) or slip and when and when not to counter, etc. Speed; power; athleticism are person's attributes or natural assets.

[ewenhay]

Surely technique is the ability to consistently execute punches correctly?

And footwork to avoid punches and create angles and control distance; effective combinations; etc. Head movement, etc. IQ example is knowing when to block with your glove(s) or slip and when and when not to counter, etc. Speed; power; athleticism are person's attributes or natural assets.

Agreed

[oogiebe]

And footwork to avoid punches and create angles and control distance; effective combinations; etc. Head movement, etc. IQ example is knowing when to block with your glove(s) or slip and when and when not to counter, etc. Speed; power; athleticism are person's attributes or natural assets.

Agreed

You mean I'm right?!