Obviously not, literally speaking. But I began to wonder if good technique (after the basics) can actually be taught, or can you only teach tactics. Joe Louis' skills were recently discussed here. His fighting still looks spectacular, to this day. Back in his day there was a fighter called Gunnar Bärlund, who at his best was Louis' #2 contender. Barlund was called as 'the most technically skilled fighter in the world' by many, Jack Dempsey among them. Now this Barlund fellow trained with his grandma (sic), based on a Swedish boxing magazine until he was 15. After that, he had a Finnish trainer, but there was no knowledge of the trade here. After that, he had several, usually little-known coaches. Yet somehow he became a master technician. So is it that the ones with talent can learn a supreme technique pretty quickly? How does it work?
Yeah, i think it is to a point. Some guys will become good technician really fast, while others will remains poor technically (relatively speaking of course), even after years of training. Take a guy like toney, who was.an.excellent technician even though he started boxing fairly late
It definitely is, but it's important to discern where it's applicable. For instance, Myung-Woo Yuh had great technique, but I think that was from decades of hard work rather than just picking it up straight away and being a phenom. However, Toney - who's a great example of this - he picked it up straight away.
Yes, it is a talent. If it was easily replicable, you would be seeing a lot more guys like Louis, Arguello, Trinidad, Ricardo Lopez, ect. But as we know, guys like this are pretty rare. It takes a good teacher, obviously, but some guys just have the ability to deliver punches better than others. In other words, even if you take Mickey Ward from a youth, I dont you could ever turn him into Felix Trinidad.
As an example, the type of left hook Arguello KOd Ruben Olivares with - you could try to teach that to 100 fighters, and maybe 1 can pull it off.
It's just aptitude for learning, in boxing specifically. Some guys have it at the highest level, some guys don't. I don't think Micky's technique is actually bad (I think he has moments where it's pretty good) but yeah, he isn't ever gonna be mistaken for Julio Cesar Chavez.
I always thought his right hand had it's moments, too. I think Myung-Woo Yuh is the best example of learning the hard way and Toney is the best example of learning extremely easily.
So perhaps the coaches can teach tactics and ploys more than technical finesse? Such as "if you throw your jab here, he will react so-and-so and you can take advantage". Some fighters may figure it out themselves but this is something than can be taught too. Whether or not the fighter can do as instructed is more of a talent. Also, coaches have a big impact to physical training, but maybe not as much with technique
At the academy, our sessions are split into four sections. Technical, tactical, physical and mental. The technical work is what you're talking about. It's singular techniques, how to use them, and what they'll accomplish. We sometimes do studies on different fighters, sometimes Joe will come down and teach us all something specific which be thinks would benefit our style, and other times it'll just be something as simple as varying the jab or countering to the body. The tactical work is much more 'macro'. It's more ring craft and opponent specific. For instance, me and my main partner Odel, worked together before our last fights. It helps us knowing who were fighting, and us both being good match for one another. It was things like me working against someone good off the ropes, and with quicker feet than me, and he was working with a southpaw pressure fighter. Just as an aside, Odel won the MTK Box Cup just the other day against a southpaw pressure fighter. Mental and physical tend to get rolled into one, with arduous S&C routines. Although they're clearly effective, I haven't ever been nearly as athletic as I am now.
Here's Mike on Joe Louis. He doesn't specifically mention Joe's punching technique, but he does briefly mention Louis' unsurpassed ability of turning his opponents when hurt. Mike says, "He turns em, just like he's breathing. He's a master."
It greatly helped Chocolatito's technique that he modeled himself after Arguello, and was mentored by Arguello, but none of it would have worked if Choco wasn't extremely naturally talented.
I think people overstate aesthetic, mechanical technique and understate things such as judgment of distance, effective application, creativity and even intuition - the things that make technique 'work'. I would use Carlos Monzon as my primary example. From a purely mechanical, aesthetic viewpoint of textbook technique he is actually pretty basic and even does things wrong. People are usually underwhelmed on their first viewing of him. He 'bow and arrows' with the right etc. and in general could look janky. Yet no one, even very well schooled and aesthetic fighters, could beat him at his best, because his judgment of distance and application of what he had was second to none. It doesn't matter how many things you can do if you can't apply them. It's why people overhyped Loma and were shocked over his loss to Lopez (though Loma is still an awesome fighter). Guys like Toney, Monzon have an intuitive sense of movement and judgment and apply it accordingly in ways that suit them. In Toney's case, he was moulded into a technical master, as it both suited him and fit his ideal of what a boxer should be. Yuh, as mentioned above, is probably the best example of a master without that intuitive sense. There is nothing dynamic about his style though it is extremely efficient for winning.
Monzon I think has a very good case of having the highest IQ in history. He seemed to analyze his opponents about as well as any fighter who ever lived. I'm big on Hagler, and by no means was Hagler low IQ, but I definitely think Monzon edged Marvin in ring intelligence.
I dont find Monzon dull btw. I know many do, and I guess he is an acquired taste. I love watching him, I always have. But yeah, 9/10 people would watch Loma and then watch Monzon, and think Loma is more talented. No, Loma is more FLASHY. Carlos Monzon was a fuck of a lot more talented than that diva.
Glad Yuh is getting some shout outs here. I like watching Yuh work. He was Chavez-lite. I dont think Yuh would have beaten Chang, but I think he would have been prime Chang's toughest test.
I think what seperated fighters like Monzon and Lomachenko, is raw intangibles. The little things which can't be quantified. Loma is every bit as intelligent as Monzon IMO, and a better technician and a far better athlete, whereas Monzon was a lot tougher and a much, much more dominant, and consistent ring general. I think in a vacuum, I'd take Lomachenko as the better fighter. However, fights aren't fought in a vacuum, and between the two, Monzon's track record is far superior. He didn't freeze up, or choke. He didn't hesitate when something new came up and didn't complain when things didn't go to plan. He knuckled down and got to work, whereas Lomachenko seemed to freeze and regroup, and indeed, lose. I don't think Lomachenko is mentally weak, but I do think his lack of elite, all-time great intangibles make him one of those "less than the sum of its parts" types.
I hate watching Monzon btw. Bores me to tears, but I can still appreciate what he's doing. Griffith is similar in that regard.
I personally don't think Chang vs Yuh would be the epic war some others think it would be. I think there would be some early exchanges, after which Chang realises what he's up against and starts skirting around and picking his spots against the less talented, straightforward aggressor. If he ever gets in trouble he would simply maul Yuh (like he did to everyone else) and eventually win a decisive decision imo. Of course, it would still be good and challenging.
I will say one thing for Loma, he certainly goes after the big fights and the larger fighters. He may be overhyped by casuals, but he is extremely ballsy.
I absolutely love watching Yuh fight. His workrate is amazing. And with Chang, I agree with Rough. I think he'd treat Yuh like he did Torres, and flit in and out of range, stinging Yuh and keeping him turning. At the tough spots where Yuh corners him, I imagine we'd see Chang either slip and slide until he saw an exit, fight back with full force or maul Yuh to a complete standstill. Either way, Chang gets the better of it and wins clearly.
Yeah, that part of his game turns me off. I recognize him as one of the best welterweights of all time, but I can't say I enjoy watching him.
Must be scary to be in a clinch with Griffith. Whole time you're thinking: "That had BETTER BE a low blow I feel poking me down there!"
