Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Furn View Post
    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


    • #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


      • #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


        • #14
          Originally posted by Furn View Post
          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 stupidly "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


          • #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


            • #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


              • #17
                Originally posted by techliam View Post
                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


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

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by techliam View Post
                    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


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by -PBP- View Post
                      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...
                      X
                      TOP