Printable View
I read the term great technical fight everywhere,good examples being B Hop v Winky and Floyd v Spinks,what do you mean by the term? A superb exhibition of the fundamentals of boxing and pure boxing skills oooooorrrrrr a fight where nothing happens apart from good defence...
The first part
a great technical fight was barrea v marquez... not relying on athletic ablity but rather pure boxing skills and ring knowledge...spinks v mayweather..spinks doesn;t really have any skills not on PBF's level for sure that would be floyd vs a scary soft hitting runner whose only there because of his pedigree not his skills
It's a no mistake fight. Or a little mistake fight. It's not really defense, I think probably the best technical fight of recent memory was Juan Manuel Marquez versus Marco Antonio Barrera. Neither boxer did anything wrong, and both executed their strengths as well as they could. And both of them got hit plenty, but you won't see any wasted movement, bad balance, feet moving straight backwards, hands dropping after punches ect. Just good boxing. It doesn't have to be boring, and quite honestly, if you have two good technical fighters, chances are it won't be boring.
I have said this before, and it's not entirely on topic but is worth mentioning again. The term "boxer" is absolutely ridiculous, and seems only to apply to guys who stay on the outside with the jab. I hear fighters like Zahir Raheem and Cory Spinks being referred to as pure boxers. But they aren't. They are one dimensional fighters. Yet if you were ever to apply the "boxer" term to Miguel Cotto, who is a lot more rounded then the both of them, you would pretty much be smashed. It's such a vague term, and it seems to only belong to outside fighters, no matter if they have an inside game or not.
You beat me to the punch, CC.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
When I say "a great technical fight"... I mean just that ;D ;D ;D