Who's the more complete fighter RJJ or Mayweather

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Fox McCloud
    Mission Complete!
    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
    • Apr 2007
    • 18176
    • 789
    • 1,151
    • 26,037

    #61
    Originally posted by QUISQUEYA
    I respectfully disagree. The shell defense and shoulder roll is one version of a classical defensive posture.

    James Toney.
    Just because less than 10 people in history use something doesn't make it a classical boxing style.

    Comment

    • tyson
      Undisputed Champion
      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
      • Oct 2003
      • 5344
      • 317
      • 435
      • 13,084

      #62
      Originally posted by DWiens421
      No... Cory Spinks is technical.

      Mayweather goes beyond boxing technique (which really is like the beginner's guide to fighting) by using things from the advanced realm of boxing (right land leads, multiple hooks at one time, etc.)

      The shell defense is NOT something a technical fighter uses... technical fighters keep their hands up.

      Once again... in Floyd's case, he would be a worse fighter if he was more technical. His athletic gifts allow him to forego those things that beginners have to use to be effective. Got it?
      I disagree with your definition or choice of words here.

      Mayweather is extremely technical.
      Text book fighters keep their hands up. There is no definition on where you can place your hands in order to be considered technical.

      He might not be textbook, but he has technique in abundance don't you think? And the shoulder roll/philly shell has been used by many many fighters through the last century.
      It was very popular to bend down to the right with the right glove covering the front of your face to stop incoming straight shots, while keeping the left hand low/covering your body.

      Even Jake LaMotta did that.

      Comment

      • Fox McCloud
        Mission Complete!
        Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
        • Apr 2007
        • 18176
        • 789
        • 1,151
        • 26,037

        #63
        ^^^^^

        I interchange technical with textbook.

        Whether that is correct or not, I am now questioning that, considering I did get a lot of argument on my posts in this thread.

        So what is technique if it isn't textbook? Effectiveness?

        If that's the case, then technique is an equal measure of success, which seems kind of silly to have as a definition of technique.

        Comment

        • tyson
          Undisputed Champion
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Oct 2003
          • 5344
          • 317
          • 435
          • 13,084

          #64
          Originally posted by DWiens421
          ^^^^^

          I interchange technical with textbook.

          Whether that is correct or not, I am now questioning that, considering I did get a lot of argument on my posts in this thread.

          So what is technique if it isn't textbook? Effectiveness?

          If that's the case, then technique is an equal measure of success, which seems kind of silly to have as a definition of technique.
          Well, Ronaldinho is not text-book soccer player.

          He is mad technical though.

          Textbook could probably be considered basics. The foundations to build your technique on. I can't say it any better than that, at least not this late.

          I will jump to bed now.

          Comment

          Working...
          TOP