Definition of boxing technique

[Enlightened-One]

The difinition of technique is
=a skilful or efficient way of doing or achieving something.
In boxing this would mean hit and not get hit.
Meaning, the better you are in hit and not get hit, the better your technique is.

A fighter can be elusive due to their reflexes, even if they're lacking boxing fundamentals.

When Roy got old and started to slow down, his lack of technique became apparent.

This isn’t based on hindsight, since Bernard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather Jr. both commented on Jones Jr’s lack of boxing fundamentals well before his demise.

Also, to be clear, I’m not undermining Roy’s legacy or remarkable in-ring performances in any way, but I do feel the main reason for his success was his fantastic athleticism, which allowed him to get away with certain things most other fighters can’t.

Unfortunately though, he existed in an era where PED testing was negligible. And he did test positive for banned substances on at least one occasion.

If you’re looking for a poster boy to represent the definifition of the word “technique”, from a boxing perspective, Roy Jones Jr. isn’t your guy, since (when he was in his prime) he used to do things that all boxing novices are taught not to do.

Regardless, the reason why Floyd Mayweather Jr. is praised for his technique, is because of he didn’t rely on his physicality to beat his foes. His success was solely built on his execution of the sweet science.

[ewenhay]

Bit harsh on Roy Jones Jr who had good technique as well as his well documented physical gifts

I agree though that if you were to have a poster boy for technical boxer over the last 20 years Mayweather would be the guy.

[Enlightened-One]

Bit harsh on Roy Jones Jr who had good technique as well as his well documented physical gifts

I agree though that if you were to have a poster boy for technical boxer over the last 20 years Mayweather would be the guy.

I’m not suggesting that Roy Jones Jr. had no skill. However, I am saying that his superman-like reflexes allowed him to get away with things other fighters couldn’t. He did things most novices are taught not to do.

The prime version of Roy Jones Jr. primarily relied upon a combination of his remarkable athletic ability and unorthodox fighting style, because his traditional boxing fundamentals and ring IQ were inferior to Floyd Mayweather’s.

The reason why Jones Jr’s career declined so rapidly, became a shot fighter seemingly overnight, was his failure to adapt to his fighting style to cater for his own physical decline. He didn’t have the traditional skills and ring IQ to fall back on, since he continuously tried to fight like the younger version of himself against opponents’ whose athleticism was greater than his own.

For sure, Roy was a skilful fighter, in his own unique way, but his stylistic approach was heavily reliant on superior athleticism to execute. Some boxers adopt fighting styles that rely too much on youthful exuberance.

[RonnyJ]

The difinition of technique is
=a skilful or efficient way of doing or achieving something.
In boxing this would mean hit and not get hit.
Meaning, the better you are in hit and not get hit, the better your technique is.

A fighter can be elusive due to their reflexes, even if they're lacking boxing fundamentals.

When Roy got old and started to slow down, his lack of technique became apparent.

This isn’t based on hindsight, since Bernard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather Jr. both commented on Jones Jr’s lack of boxing fundamentals well before his demise.

Also, to be clear, I’m not undermining Roy’s legacy or remarkable in-ring performances in any way, but I do feel the main reason for his success was his fantastic athleticism, which allowed him to get away with certain things most other fighters can’t.

Unfortunately though, he existed in an era where PED testing was negligible. And he did test positive for banned substances on at least one occasion.

If you’re looking for a poster boy to represent the definifition of the word “technique”, from a boxing perspective, Roy Jones Jr. isn’t your guy, since (when he was in his prime) he used to do things that all boxing novices are taught not to do.

Regardless, the reason why Floyd Mayweather Jr. is praised for his technique, is because of he didn’t rely on his physicality to beat his foes. His success was solely built on his execution of the sweet science.

No. Floyd was very athletic and that helped mayor. When he was in his prime he was one of the most athletic boxers on earth. Even out of his prime he was still more athletic blessed with better reflexes than 98 % of all boxers.

Just watch the corrales fight, super athletic. He was born with that kind of speed and agility.

Athletic makes everything easier. Floyd of now lost his athltiscm, he still got his phenomenal technique, but with the loss of his athletiscm he would lose against todays top boxers.

[Enlightened-One]

A fighter can be elusive due to their reflexes, even if they're lacking boxing fundamentals.

When Roy got old and started to slow down, his lack of technique became apparent.

This isn’t based on hindsight, since Bernard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather Jr. both commented on Jones Jr’s lack of boxing fundamentals well before his demise.

Also, to be clear, I’m not undermining Roy’s legacy or remarkable in-ring performances in any way, but I do feel the main reason for his success was his fantastic athleticism, which allowed him to get away with certain things most other fighters can’t.

Unfortunately though, he existed in an era where PED testing was negligible. And he did test positive for banned substances on at least one occasion.

If you’re looking for a poster boy to represent the definifition of the word “technique”, from a boxing perspective, Roy Jones Jr. isn’t your guy, since (when he was in his prime) he used to do things that all boxing novices are taught not to do.

Regardless, the reason why Floyd Mayweather Jr. is praised for his technique, is because of he didn’t rely on his physicality to beat his foes. His success was solely built on his execution of the sweet science.

No. Floyd was very athletic and that helped mayor. When he was in his prime he was one of the most athletic boxers on earth. Even out of his prime he was still more athletic blessed with better reflexes than 98 % of all boxers.

Just watch the corrales fight, super athletic. He was born with that kind of speed and agility.

Athletic makes everything easier. Floyd of now lost his athltiscm, he still got his phenomenal technique, but with the loss of his athletiscm he would lose against todays top boxers.

I can’t believe I have to explain this, but I will do anyway.

I’m not suggesting that a fighter can keep going to the pub, drink lots of beer, eat rubbish food, do no training whatsoever… and still be successful, as long as they have skills.

Of course Floyd Mayweather Jr. was dedicated to his craft. He was super-disciplined, trained all the time and was super-fit.

I just feel that different fighters have a different mix of ingredients that contributes to their success.

For Floyd, especially at welterweight, despite being physically fit, he often faced opponents that were bigger and stronger than himself. Some might have even had better hand-speed and cardio levels. However, his skills literally paid the bills.

For Jones Jr., of course he had skills, but his main advantages over his opponents were related to his athleticism (hand-speed, power, reflexes etc.). He was a remarkable physical specimen, but his fighting style relied upon youth and speed, hence the quick decline.

All fighters need to train and be athletic to achieve success in the sport of boxing, but longevity tends to rely on traditional skills and ring IQ to allow for adaptability.

[RonnyJ]

No. Floyd was very athletic and that helped mayor. When he was in his prime he was one of the most athletic boxers on earth. Even out of his prime he was still more athletic blessed with better reflexes than 98 % of all boxers.

Just watch the corrales fight, super athletic. He was born with that kind of speed and agility.

Athletic makes everything easier. Floyd of now lost his athltiscm, he still got his phenomenal technique, but with the loss of his athletiscm he would lose against todays top boxers.

I can’t believe I have to explain this, but I will do anyway.

I’m not suggesting that a fighter can keep going to the pub, drink lots of beer, eat rubbish food, do no training whatsoever… and still be successful, as long as they have skills.

Of course Floyd Mayweather Jr. was dedicated to his craft. He was super-disciplined, trained all the time and was super-fit.

I just feel that different fighters have a different mix of ingredients that contributes to their success.

For Floyd, especially at welterweight, despite being physically fit, he often faced opponents that were bigger and stronger than himself. Some might have even had better hand-speed and cardio levels. However, his skills literally paid the bills.

For Jones Jr., of course he had skills, but his main advantages over his opponents were related to his athleticism (hand-speed, power, reflexes etc.). He was a remarkable physical specimen, but his fighting style relied upon youth and speed, hence the quick decline.

All fighters need to train and be athletic to achieve success in the sport of boxing, but longevity tends to rely on traditional skills and ring IQ to allow for adaptability.

aggree on most parts

[candyslim]

One boxer that is never anything less than fascinating is Clay/Ali. The success of Cassius Clay was built on his phenomenal athleticism specifically handspeed, footspeed, reflexes.

Muhammad Ali relied far more on technique, ring IQ, and tremendous heart and endurance. He had a very good chin which is a quality that is often overlooked in favour of his more aesthetic attributes.

I wonder genuinely whether his transition from the sixties champ to the seventies champ was made possible by his intelligence and ring generalship or did he always have good techique as well as the speed and superb reflexes right from his early days?

[Thomastearns]

One boxer that is never anything less than fascinating is Clay/Ali. The success of Cassius Clay was built on his phenomenal athleticism specifically handspeed, footspeed, reflexes.

Muhammad Ali relied far more on technique, ring IQ, and tremendous heart and endurance. He had a very good chin which is a quality that is often overlooked in favour of his more aesthetic attributes.

I wonder genuinely whether his transition from the sixties champ to the seventies champ was made possible by his intelligence and ring generalship or did he always have good techique as well as the speed and superb reflexes right from his early days?

Well Ali was definitely a one-off almost right from birth apparently. Definitely through childhood.

My take is that he was the greatest boxer ever to put on a pair of gloves - almost perfect in any category you care to look at.

For sure his 1960s sublime speed and reflexes were in decline through the 70s but his vast ring experience, awesome courage, unshakable confidence, and relentless psychological warfare all helped to prolong his remarkable career.

When you're that good everywhere else technique is merely one factor, and not the overiding one. Such immense talent almost seems to scoff at technique at times as we saw also with the likes of Ray Leonard, Naseem Hamed and Roy Jones jr.

As for the nature and origin of his talent the most we can say is that he was different. Various psychoanalytic attempts over the years have all stopped short from giving us any clear answers.

Different boxers have shown similarities eg Larry Holmes, Ray Leonard and Mark Breland to name a few, but so far we have not seen anyone else quite like him.

[candyslim]

I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't think they know the answer to that question.

I would rate him the world's greatest ever heavyweight, and a contender for greatest boxer but that's an even more fiercely contested accolade. Maybe the world's most extraordinary boxer, how's that?