Timing Beats speed it's a myth isn't it ?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Redd Foxx
    Hittin' the heavy bag.
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Dec 2011
    • 22007
    • 1,180
    • 2,316
    • 1,257,197

    #11
    Originally posted by Furn
    Every fight, floyd,pac, roy jones, mosley, dhl etc etc ever won.

    Fast guys win way more fights than slow guys.
    You seem to be confused. Most on your list have timing and speed but timing is their true strength, which is supported by their speed. Don't think of timing as just countering. There's much more to it than that. Timing is integral to every offensive and defensive movement.

    "Slow" guys generally don't have great timing, but rely on power.

    Comment

    • Furn
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • May 2010
      • 4758
      • 318
      • 35
      • 43,020

      #12
      There's a couple of good example JMM v pac and Tzsyu v Judah but Jmm won 1 of 4 fights with Pac and Tzsyu isn't exactly slow.

      Like i said it does happen, but the way people bring it up its like its a sure thing.

      "timing beats speed" is what they say.

      when the reality is timing can beat speed but it rarely actually happens and is very much the exception thna the rule.

      Comment

      • gmc_rfc_06
        Undisputed Champion
        Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
        • Oct 2010
        • 9486
        • 282
        • 131
        • 16,947

        #13
        Timing is better than speed.

        Guys like Mayweather, RJJ, etc...had tremendous timing as well as speed. Speed alone isn't enough to beat the top guys.

        Comment

        • ////
          ////
          Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
          • Sep 2014
          • 14948
          • 952
          • 671
          • 111,577

          #14
          Originally posted by Furn
          Every fight, floyd,pac, roy jones, mosley, dhl etc etc ever won.

          Fast guys win way more fights than slow guys.
          it depends, what do you call this?



          to me that's mostly timing, not speed

          it's the other fighters off balance, helpless reaction (or lack of a reaction) that makes the gif look super fast the first time you watch it

          watch it 10 more times.. just watch roy's hands alone and imagine he's doing that in a gym to a punching bag... what he's doing is not some blazing combination, it's just a standard old 1-2, step back

          just perfectly perfectly timed when reggie is ******ly "testing the waters" with a weak, lame jab

          the second he sees that his opponent is slacking off he explodes but its just 2 punches... timing

          not saying he wasn't fast too but he was mostly a timing guy, he didn't pour it on all night and rack up a bazillion points, he usually timed his opponents then waited for a specific moment
          Last edited by ////; 03-05-2016, 10:12 AM.

          Comment

          • Tom Cruise
            Co.cktail
            Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
            • Dec 2007
            • 11442
            • 539
            • 474
            • 39,887

            #15
            I dont think its that timing always beats speed. More that speed in itself isnt enough to beat someone with good timing. You need good ring IQ, feints and movement to disrupt their rhythm

            Comment

            • techliam
              Caneloweight Champion
              Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
              • Apr 2012
              • 5525
              • 370
              • 23
              • 42,424

              #16
              The biggest myth on here is that 'boxing is hit and not be hit'

              I think people have confused the sport of boxing to the style known as 'boxing' (i.e being a 'boxer' as opposed to a 'brawler')

              Boxing is about beating your opponent, in the ring, under the rules. If you have to take a few punches to land a bomb, so be it.

              Comment

              • b00g13man
                Undisputed Champion
                Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
                • Dec 2012
                • 12197
                • 265
                • 51
                • 34,905

                #17
                Originally posted by techliam
                The biggest myth on here is that 'boxing is hit and not be hit'

                I think people have confused the sport of boxing to the style known as 'boxing' (i.e being a 'boxer' as opposed to a 'brawler')

                Boxing is about beating your opponent, in the ring, under the rules. If you have to take a few punches to land a bomb, so be it.
                Why is defense a scoring criteria?

                Comment

                • techliam
                  Caneloweight Champion
                  Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                  • Apr 2012
                  • 5525
                  • 370
                  • 23
                  • 42,424

                  #18
                  Originally posted by b00g13man
                  Why is defense a scoring criteria?
                  Is defence the only scoring criteria?

                  Comment

                  • -PBP-
                    32 Time World Champion
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Jan 2012
                    • 24107
                    • 836
                    • 635
                    • 34,297

                    #19
                    Originally posted by techliam
                    The biggest myth on here is that 'boxing is hit and not be hit'

                    I think people have confused the sport of boxing to the style known as 'boxing' (i.e being a 'boxer' as opposed to a 'brawler')

                    Boxing is about beating your opponent, in the ring, under the rules. If you have to take a few punches to land a bomb, so be it.
                    Nah...the myth is associating hit and not get hit with one style.

                    Duran, Chavez Sr, Golovkin, Kovalev...hit their opponent and don't get hit back.

                    If you hit your opponent harder and more effective than he hits you you will probably win.

                    Comment

                    • techliam
                      Caneloweight Champion
                      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                      • Apr 2012
                      • 5525
                      • 370
                      • 23
                      • 42,424

                      #20
                      Originally posted by -PBP-
                      Nah...the myth is associating hit and not get hit with one style.

                      Duran, Chavez Sr, Golovkin, Kovalev...hit their opponent and don't get hit back.

                      If you hit your opponent harder and more effective than he hits you you will probably win.
                      Bit of a backtrack there, now its only 'probably'

                      You can win a boxing match even if you landed less punches... pretty much condemning the 'hit and not be hit' theory. Golovkin took a few punches from Murray in their fight, knew it was necessary in order to stop his movement and land a bomb.

                      Like you said, boxing is about all styles, and ultimately about winning. If you need to take a few punches to set something up, then so be it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP