# Which boxer had the most success with the worst technique?



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

George Foreman for me. You watch his fights back in the day, he is crude as hell. But certainly effective.

Who are some other names who achieved HOF-level careers while not having A+ technique - having much of their success coming from physical attributes?

:hat


----------



## Tuff Gong (May 22, 2013)

Ricardo Mayorga


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Foreman is a great example and considering that he reclaimed THE title in his 40s when not much better I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Honourable mentions to Marco Huck and Rocky Marciano.


----------



## hamas (Jun 5, 2013)

Joe Calzaghe


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

bazooka limon


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

A few off the top of my head include:

Jake LaMatta
Rocky Graziano
Rocky Marciano
George Foreman
Arturo Gatti

These guys were pretty much walk you down type fighters that relied on their power and ability to take punishment over skill to get them through fights


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I always found Humberto to be super crude to watch.


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

carlos maussa.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

To me it's Gianfranco Rosi, mainly an awkward sort of guy...no punch worth speaking of, no technique, no chin, not particularly fast or strong, yet he won the WBC Super Welter title in late 1987, defended it twice, lost to Donald Curry the next year, then a year later, won the IBF Super Welter title, defended it 12 times and held that title for just over 5 years. I was amazed that with as little to offer that he had, that he came back to be a titlist again, and defended that trinket so many times. He was like a bad Italian dinner, but I had a grudging admiration for him anyway.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

gumbo2176 said:


> A few off the top of my head include:
> 
> Jake LaMatta
> Rocky Graziano
> ...


Oooooo, totally disagree about Gatti.

He had very underrated boxing skills because his default position was all out attack but trust me, he was far better than most mentioned on here so far.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

LaMotta, Foreman and Marciano all had good punching technique. They don't belong anywhere near a list for worst technique.

Stanley Ketchel does, though.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Oooooo, totally disagree about Gatti.
> 
> He had very underrated boxing skills because his default position was all out attack but trust me, he was far better than most mentioned on here so far.


I decided to not say anything before, but Aturo Gatti has no business being mentioned in this thread. He was a very sharp puncher and put combinations together competently enough. Offensively there was a lot to admire, he was just far too easy to hit.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> LaMotta, Foreman and Marciano all had good punching technique. They don't belong anywhere near a list for worst technique.
> 
> Stanley Ketchel does, though.


The thread is about worst technique but most success and although Foreman did have good punching technique, few paid him respect and accolade for his overall technique. (Wasn't he also widely ridiculed for his, albeit successful, one arm across his head and the other across his stomach defence against Holyfield? ).

Yet the man was twice linear Heavyweight Champion of the World.

I think that is the perfect example of the OP's original challenge?


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

gumbo2176 said:


> A few off the top of my head include:
> 
> Jake LaMatta
> Rocky Graziano
> ...


I think that's a little harsh, some of these guys were very hittable but they didn't all have terrible technique when it came to dishing it out


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Agreed about Foreman though. I remember emulating his bodyshots on Ali, arms and palms outstretched while awkwardly whacking away with the other hand on the heavy bag and got told off by my coach (If you're going to hit it, hit it right) :lol: I guess it can work when you can knock down a brick wall


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Well guys, when I think about boxing technique, I look at the overall picture and the list of guys I put up were very hittable or had some flaws in their game. Hell, some of them acted like it would have insulted their opponent if the dodged a punch.

Yes, these guys had pop in their offense, but none of them could be mistaken for a Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson, Floyd Patterson, Willie Pep, etc.

The OP didn't specify offensive technique. If he did, my list would have been different for sure.


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Mayorga.

Foreman was highly skilled. 
He became the oldest HW champ ever ffs it was hardly his youth that won him the fight and every HW can punch the the 90s HW division was full of huge punchers.
I can't even comprehend how someone could claim he had bad technique.


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I always found Humberto to be super crude to watch.


I don't even know this guy but I can see that he was a great infighter.

Neither this guy nor Foreman had bad technique.

I feel that people always just assume everyone who boxes on the outside is a great technician and everyone who gets down and dirty has no technique. It's like style over substance for whatever reason that are the same people who claim Rocky Marciano had bad defence


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

PivotPunch said:


> Mayorga.
> 
> Foreman was highly skilled.
> He became the oldest HW champ ever ffs it was hardly his youth that won him the fight and every HW can punch the the 90s HW division was full of huge punchers.
> I can't even comprehend how someone could claim he had bad technique.


Because we're talking about textbook boxing mainly, of course certain boxers get away with breaking the rules when they are tha tgood, I had no right to try and beat up a heavybag like I was George Foreman, I'm not, but you wouldn't exactly teach a young fighter to fight like Foreman, only Foreman can do that


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Then again I often alternated how I would throw a hook and I know for a fact some people would say I was slapping, when I was just bending at the elbow and chopping across, unorthodox techniques aren't always wrong by any means


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

PivotPunch said:


> I don't even know this guy but I can see that he was a great infighter.
> 
> Neither this guy nor Foreman had bad technique.
> 
> I feel that people always just assume everyone who boxes on the outside is a great technician and everyone who gets down and dirty has no technique. It's like style over substance for whatever reason that are the same people who claim Rocky Marciano had bad defence


Maidana is a good example of what you speak, he looks like a bar brawler up close but he accentuates his advantages extremely well


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

The Kraken said:


> Because we're talking about textbook boxing mainly, of course certain boxers get away with breaking the rules when they are tha tgood, I had no right to try and beat up a heavybag like I was George Foreman, I'm not, but you wouldn't exactly teach a young fighter to fight like Foreman, only Foreman can do that


But how is that bad technique? You wouldn't teach a 5'10 HW to fight like Wlad either.

How can you critize Foreman's punching technique with the power he developed that way? He wasn't perfect technically but he did some things great. he has ATG offensive footwork at least young Foreman had.

He had a great not good but great jab even in his younger days when he actually used it. He had superb punch selection, timing and used punches extremely well to set up favourable situations. His defense wasn't horrible either when he wasn't jsut brawling like he did against Lyle.
He had great uppercuts again not good but gret ones and he had some of the best bodypunches of a big HW ever.

How is he anywhere close a bad fighter technically?

You wouldn't teach a young fighter to fight like Mayweather either or like Wlad. If you base technical proficiency on how you would teach the average Joe to fight like then the most skilled boxer ever would be some experienced journeyman or gatekeeper who has learned the craft but lacks the certain physical abilities and natural instincts.

Whitaker, Mayweather, Duran, Hopkins, Toney yeah even Hopkins especially in his younger days had physical abilities and natural instincts that 99,99999% of the kids you teach boxing don't have.

A boxer being able to compete up to an old age when his physical abilties start to decline is one of theclearest signs of great technique. Foreman didn't do any boxing for 10 years, then won the belt in his mid 40s and arguably beat a young Briggs at the age of 50 how would someone with bad technique accomplish that


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

PivotPunch said:


> But how is that bad technique? You wouldn't teach a 5'10 HW to fight like Wlad either.
> 
> How can you critize Foreman's punching technique with the power he developed that way? He wasn't perfect technically but he did some things great. he has ATG offensive footwork at least young Foreman had.
> 
> ...


His 2 inch punch against Moorer was astonishing, you're right, when I watch this again 



It's not bad technique, just unorthodox, he's actually trying to create space pretty well, I was mesmerized by what he was doing at the time, which is why I tried to replicate it, when you look at those bodyshots he was throwing though, you can see why m ytrainer corrected me, he didn't know I was trying to emulate Foreman, he just knew I wasn't fucking Foreman.

That kind of pure power and strength doesn't translate well through the television


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Hell, the Colonel says it himself "There's a vicious, awkward, but very powerful bodyshot"


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

PivotPunch said:


> I don't even know this guy but I can see that he was a great infighter.
> 
> Neither this guy nor Foreman had bad technique.
> 
> I feel that people always just assume everyone who boxes on the outside is a great technician and everyone who gets down and dirty has no technique. It's like style over substance for whatever reason that are the same people who claim Rocky Marciano had bad defence


The thread is discussing boxers that accomplished the most with the worst technique. By no acceptable standard would anyone raise Humberto Gonzalez's technique as being one of his strengths. Al Bernstein covered a lot of his fights on Showtime and would quite regularly note how unimpressed he was with Gonzalez's punch delivery. Typically Gonzalez's offense would primarily consist of wide hooks, lunging shots, leaving him open for counter punches, which might explain why he was stopped brutally on a couple of occasions and why he was often outboxed prior to scoring knockouts. So whilst you may watch that video and conclude that his technique wasn't "bad", it certainly wasn't great, and a discussion like this is all about context. In the context of other dominant world champions of the era, Humberto Gonzalez's technique was sub-par.

I stand by my pick and would suggest you watch some footage of Humberto Gonzalez, as I'm stunned you've never heard of him considering you seem to be taking the position as something of an educator here.

What successful boxers throughout history would you say had bad technique, @PivotPunch?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

The Kraken said:


> Maidana is a good example of what you speak, he looks like a bar brawler up close but he accentuates his advantages extremely well


We need to get the context absolutely clear here. We are talking about professional boxers. They are going to be competent when it comes to delivering blows, that goes without saying. But in the context of professional boxers, successful world level fighters, we are discussing who was the most successful with the least impressive technique. That's the discussion here. And quite frankly, George Foreman did not have great technique considering what he achieved. He's a fair pick as far as I'm concerned. Just as Maidana is a fair pick.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

I agree context is everything, pretty much what I meant by me trying to be Foreman on the bag, standing square on launching heavy "arm punches" (they look like arm punches but not with the hips put into them) my trainer came over and stood me sideways on balance (and reminded me to defend my chin), doesn't mean if I was a heavyweight any amount of proper technique training would help me beat a prime George Foreman


----------



## Bukkake (Jul 19, 2013)

Freddie Mills was probably one of the most primitive world champions I have ever seen.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Bukkake said:


> Freddie Mills was probably one of the most primitive world champions I have ever seen.


I don't know man, at 1:35 that Foreman body combo seemed to work well for him


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> To me it's Gianfranco Rosi, mainly an awkward sort of guy...no punch worth speaking of, no technique, no chin, not particularly fast or strong, yet he won the WBC Super Welter title in late 1987, defended it twice, lost to Donald Curry the next year, then a year later, won the IBF Super Welter title, defended it 12 times and held that title for just over 5 years. I was amazed that with as little to offer that he had, that he came back to be a titlist again, and defended that trinket so many times. He was like a bad Italian dinner, but I had a grudging admiration for him anyway.


i was thinking rossi but i think he is more of the most bang average fighter you could ever know. as a man of the street he had everything. as a world class boxer you would say he had no power, speed, agression, defencive instincts, athleticism.

he at least has a stand up approach and jabs mainly. you see someone who (and this is unfair to say to him) almost pretending to box. like he has seen how boxing is done on the tv....and nobody has corrected or adjusted him.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm gonna be a bit out there.

Sam Langford. He rarely threw a jab and was willing to exchange punches on the attack but he's remembered as one of the greatest of all time.

Even now I'd expect him to cut the ring off against Ward and bomb him out of there.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

The world champion with the worst defensive technique has got to be Troy Dorsey. It was practically non existent to be honest.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

PivotPunch said:


> How can you critize Foreman's punching technique with the power he developed that way? He wasn't perfect technically but he did some things great. he has ATG offensive footwork at least young Foreman had.
> 
> He had a great not good but great jab even in his younger days when he actually used it. He had superb punch selection, timing and used punches extremely well to set up favourable situations. His defense wasn't horrible either when he wasn't jsut brawling like he did against Lyle.
> He had great uppercuts again not good but gret ones and he had some of the best bodypunches of a big HW ever.
> ...






























Both hands down by his waist, standing straight up with his chin stuck out in front of him. At no point in any of those gifs do either of his hands raise up above shoulder level. If that was an MMA HW finishing fights with those punches and you showed those clips to Bogo, he would slaughter the guy for his form and say that the sloppy punching hurts his eyes.



PivotPunch said:


> A boxer being able to compete up to an old age when his physical abilties start to decline is one of theclearest signs of great technique. Foreman didn't do any boxing for 10 years, then won the belt in his mid 40s and arguably beat a young Briggs at the age of 50 how would someone with bad technique accomplish that












Foreman could achieve significant success in his 40s after all that time away for the same reason that he could win Olympic gold three years after setting foot in a boxing gym for the first time. Because he was a freak, an outlier with the kind of natural talent and physical attributes that can't be taught and won't be overcome by guys who aren't freaks like him, no matter what level their technique is at.

:hat


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Haggis said:


> Both hands down by his waist, standing straight up with his chin stuck out in front of him. At no point in any of those gifs do either of his hands raise up above shoulder level. If that was an MMA HW finishing fights with those punches and you showed those clips to Bogo, he would slaughter the guy for his form and say that the sloppy punching hurts his eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tons of fighters especially back then didn't fight with a high guard. The things you said about Foreman here are things you could also say about Floyd Mayweather, Whitaker, Roy Jones, Ali, Prince Naseem and many other great fighters that are rarely named as the best fighters with "worst technique".
And critizing the punching technique of one of the hardest hitters ever and argubly the best offensive HW ever is .....brave.

I don't really care what Bogo says.

What I see in these gifs is a HW stopping another ATG HW with perfectly set up uppercuts, hunting down and brutally finishing an elite HW that would have been champ in any other era and a 40 something year old man finishing an old but dangerous veteran with one of the most brutal ko's you will find and doing so with not only a really sneaky uppercut but while showing elite offensive footwork but taking a really nice angle while punching to land the (unnecessary) follow up.

Seriously the combo he finished Cooney with is something you would expect from Mayweather, Pacquiao or Roy Jones and this is a 40 year old HW doing it


----------



## Ogi (Jan 21, 2014)

Marco Huck - Horrible technique/skills, fights pretty much like a caveman yet still achieved quite a lot. Nearly beat Povetkin (before he started peds)


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Ogi said:


> Marco Huck - Horrible technique/skills, fights pretty much like a caveman yet still achieved quite a lot. Nearly beat Povetkin (before he started peds)


Even I have to say Huck might qualify. He had some single performances where he seemed improved like in the last fight with Arslan but in recent fights he seems to have fallen back into old habits again and he still somehow manages to win. he is just awkward and really one handed


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Calzaghe popped into my head, though I'm debating that.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

James Figg said:


> The thread is about worst technique but most success and although Foreman did have good punching technique, few paid him respect and accolade for his overall technique. (Wasn't he also widely ridiculed for his, albeit successful, one arm across his head and the other across his stomach defence against Holyfield? ).
> 
> Yet the man was twice linear Heavyweight Champion of the World.
> 
> I think that is the perfect example of the OP's original challenge?


Not earning respect among your contemporaries and passing the eye test are two different concepts. In terms of overall technique, Foreman showed an uncanny ability to cut off the ring, and against Norton effectively took away one of Ken's best weapons by repeatedly parrying the jab. Combined with a really good jab and an array of short punches, that makes the designation of worst technician an inappropriate one, imo.

As for that form of defense, it was a variation of Archie Moore's, who can hardly be considered to be someone with poor technique.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> A few off the top of my head include:
> 
> Jake LaMatta
> Rocky Graziano
> ...


Gatti for sure. Loved that cunt to bits.

I'm going to commit suicide here...my Man....






@Chinny


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Tuff Gong said:


> Ricardo Mayorga


Fucking animal. Mayorga was the man.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Tyson Fury


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm quite shocked anyone thinks Gatti had bad punching technique.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Put the right guy in there and Gatti actually looked a force. Especially offensively. Such a sharp puncher.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm quite shocked anyone thinks Gatti had bad punching technique.


Gatti nearly took Joey's head off that night. There was controversy regarding weight in this fight.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Put the right guy in there and Gatti actually looked a force. Especially offensively. Such a sharp puncher.


Been a long time since I watched this fight...watching now.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> Been a long time since I watched this fight...watching now.


Who are your favourite fighters outside Duran and Paez, dude?


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Who are your favourite fighters outside Duran and Paez, dude?


In rank order:

Paez
Corrales
Gatti
Valero

There are a dozen others...Michael, Marvin, Naseem Hamed, Wayne McCullough, Yaegashi, JCSuperstar, JMM, Cotto, RJJ...the list goes on.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> In rank order:
> 
> Paez
> Corrales
> ...


Exciting fighters, man. :good

Even though my boy beat your guy pretty conclusively, I think Hamed was fantastic in the post-fight interview. Try comparing Hamed after the MAB fight to Bhop after any of his losing efforts.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Exciting fighters, man. :good
> 
> Even though my boy beat your guy pretty conclusively, I think Hamed was fantastic in the post-fight interview. Try comparing Hamed after the MAB fight to Bhop after any of his losing efforts.


Naseem Hamed was the greatest fighter us British ever produced. Lennox was Canadian so he doesn't count. Hamed lost his discipline when he split from Dominic Ingle...outside of this he was fucking untouchable, technically gifted times a million.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> Naseem Hamed was the greatest fighter us British fighter ever produced. Lennox was Canadian so he doesn't count. Hamed lost his discipline when he split from Dominic Ingle...outside of this he was fucking untouchable, technically gifted times a million.


I can concede that Hamed was an unorthodox talent, but untouchable?






I think he would have been in trouble against any of the three amigos.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I can concede that Hamed was an unorthodox talent, but untouchable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Technically gifted. Got tagged against MAB because he fucked around and let his brothers dictate his training regime. Morales? He was a law unto himself. Would he have beaten Hamed? Pick 'em fight. Morales was a hard cunt.

The thing that draws me back to Hamed is his showmanship coupled with his amazing boxing talent. See also Jorge Paez, Hector Camacho.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> Technically gifted. Got tagged against MAB because he fucked around and let his brothers dictate his training regime. Morales? He was a law unto himself. Would he have beaten Hamed? Pick 'em fight. Morales was a hard cunt.
> 
> The thing that draws me back to Hamed is his showmanship coupled with his amazing boxing talent. See also Jorge Paez, Hector Camacho.


MAB beat Morales twice. Three times in my book. :conf


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

It was said that Gene Fullmer had abysmal technique,....but that sure didn't stop him from being a successful 2 reign middleweight champion.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Haggis said:


> Both hands down by his waist, standing straight up with his chin stuck out in front of him. At no point in any of those gifs do either of his hands raise up above shoulder level. If that was an MMA HW finishing fights with those punches and you showed those clips to Bogo, he would slaughter the guy for his form and say that the sloppy punching hurts his eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Foreman's KO over Cooney is one of my favourites of all time. Just the way he strolls up to him.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

PivotPunch said:


> Tons of fighters especially back then didn't fight with a high guard. The things you said about Foreman here are things you could also say about Floyd Mayweather, Whitaker, Roy Jones, Ali, Prince Naseem and many other great fighters that are rarely named as the best fighters with "worst technique".
> And critizing the punching technique of one of the hardest hitters ever and argubly the best offensive HW ever is .....brave.
> 
> I don't really care what Bogo says.
> ...


He wades into those KOs throwing punches from the waist and with no basically concern for defence at all. He's throwing bombs until the other guy falls, because he backs himself to win a shootout every time against everybody. And he was almost always right.

:hat


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

With George Foreman, especially the young George, might almost always made right....it was the equivalent of prime Roy Jones always getting by with his speed and reflexes, which covered up whatever shortcomings he had technically.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> With George Foreman, especially the young George, might almost always made right....it was the equivalent of prime Roy Jones always getting by with his speed and reflexes, which covered up whatever shortcomings he had technically.


Yep. Older George was a bit more sound, but he still won a version of the title because in his mid 40s he could STILL take a punch better than almost anyone, and STILL KO a fucking HW beltholder if he landed his jab right. He was only able to have the success he did in his second career because of the same natural attributes that enabled him to watch the 1964 Olympic boxing, think "Hey that looks pretty cool, I might try that", and then win the gold in the very next Games.

:hat


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

yous lot defending the ability of george foreman...??

he was a freak. but he is hilariously bad technique wise. yes he had a jab. but it was like he was trying to break down a door. not create chances. it's like saying long ball theory is









this was used by people to show his great sandy saddler taught hand positioning. 
the energy he wastes, the way his jab ends up at his knee after he throws it. how his right hand and shoulder go under his chin line.










his piece de resistance....pawing a jab and landing a 1-2...look at that shit. his left hand in a perfect defencive position when he throws his right...his hip. chin up. flat footed infront on his man had moorer actually slipped it.

talent he was athletic, freakishly strong, dedicated hearty and golden chin...stratedgy when he needed to create a plan he kept is simple. did what he did best, long range puncher who can be devastating on the inside.

but technique?? it's awful. like truely unbelievable bad. christmas is over i'm taking heads now.


----------



## paloalto00 (Jun 7, 2013)

First person that comes to mind is Mayorga


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

carl froch?


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

sasquatch said:


> carl froch?


No.


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

Trail said:


> No.


the square on attack. head up lunges, low hands ,not much head movement made up for it with the jab ,stamina,chin,power


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

sasquatch said:


> the square on attack. head up lunges, low hands ,not much head movement made up for it with the jab ,stamina,chin,power


His attack wasn't square on. Low hands - I trust you mean keeping hands towards hips? Ali had low hands, as did Naseem Hamed, Roy Jones. All of those had great success, but you can't call any of those fuckers' technique bad. Head movement I'll possibly give you to a certain extent. You kind of defeated your own argument by saying he was shit in terms of square on attack, low hands, no head movement then saying he had a great jab, power, chin and stamina.


----------



## nuclear (Jun 15, 2015)

James Figg said:


> (Wasn't he also widely ridiculed for his, albeit successful, one arm across his head and the other across his stomach defence against Holyfield? ).
> 
> Yet the man was twice linear Heavyweight Champion of the World.


you mean like this?


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

Trail said:


> His attack wasn't square on. Low hands - I trust you mean keeping hands towards hips? Ali had low hands, as did Naseem Hamed, Roy Jones. All of those had great success, but you can't call any of those fuckers' technique bad. Head movement I'll possibly give you to a certain extent. You kind of defeated your own argument by saying he was shit in terms of square on attack, low hands, no head movement then saying he had a great jab, power, chin and stamina.


when he did his burst combos he was square on , check abraham, kessler fights his feet are paralell to each other just look at the groves knockdown.

His hands down isnt comparable to ali,jones or hamed because he didnt have half the speed they did to use it ,so it wasnt effective as much for him

*Technique-* a skilful or efficient way of doing or achieving something / a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.

he does have a great jab when he boxed behind it , theres a difference between froch / groves 1 and the rematch .

how does saying he has power , chin and stamina defeat my own arguement of having poor technique?.


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

Trail said:


> His attack wasn't square on. Low hands - I trust you mean keeping hands towards hips? Ali had low hands, as did Naseem Hamed, Roy Jones. All of those had great success, but you can't call any of those fuckers' technique bad. Head movement I'll possibly give you to a certain extent. You kind of defeated your own argument by saying he was shit in terms of square on attack, low hands, no head movement then saying he had a great jab, power, chin and stamina.


so maybe its better to say less poor technique and more to do with slipping into bad habits?


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

sasquatch said:


> so maybe its better to say less poor technique and more to do with slipping into bad habits?


Good point. See also Amir Khan in terms of slipping into bad habits (though you can't ignore his talent). Kid keeps abandoning his game plan at the most important moments...Danny Garcia fight being the best example.


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

Trail said:


> Good point. See also Amir Khan in terms of slipping into bad habits (though you can't ignore his talent). Kid keeps abandoning his game plan at the most important moments...Danny Garcia fight being the best example.


Yep i remember khan even saying that hunter told him to go home when they started training if he wasnt going to listen to him , frustrating to watch someone never learn from their mistakes.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

sasquatch said:


> when he did his burst combos he was square on , check abraham, kessler fights his feet are paralell to each other just look at the groves knockdown.
> 
> His hands down isnt comparable to ali,jones or hamed because he didnt have half the speed they did to use it ,so it wasnt effective as much for him
> 
> ...


The Groves KD was the first one that came to mind when I read your post. I remember hosting a party at my place for the Groves first fight. I swore Froch would never get dropped. I was made to eat my own words that night.

Good point re: Froch and Ali, Jones and Naz's speed.

I'll have to have another look at the Kessler fights (I was at the second fight). Abraham is another fight I need to look at again.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

sasquatch said:


> Yep i remember khan even saying that hunter told him to go home when they started training if he wasnt going to listen to him , frustrating to watch someone never learn from their mistakes.


Khan is his own worst enemy. Supremely talented but often won't listen to advice given. Naseem Hamed was the same towards the end of his career, but then his management came from his brothers who in turn allowed him to do what the fuck he liked.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

@sasquatch What the fuck went wrong with Khan in the Prescott fight? Many claim the trainer? What do you think?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> @sasquatch What the fuck went wrong with Khan in the Prescott fight? Many claim the trainer? What do you think?


His glass jaw got hit by a big puncher.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> His glass jaw got hit by a big puncher.


Could argue Marcos Maidana was a big puncher, he couldn't drop Khan.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> Could argue Marcos Maidana was a big puncher, he couldn't drop Khan.


No, but he had him stumbling around the ring punch drunk for 3 mins.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)




----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> No, but he had him stumbling around the ring punch drunk for 3 mins.


This is very true.

Going back to the Prescott fight, I remember watching a ringside copy of that fight, amateur video. Khan was so fucked there. If I can find my copy I'll upload it.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Khan's punch resistance isn't world level but his heart is. He had no business surviving for as long as he did against Garcia.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Khan's punch resistance isn't world level but his heart is. He had no business surviving for as long as he did against Garcia.


Love boxers with heart times a million. Gatti, Corrales, Paez three of my four favourite boxers...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> Love boxers with heart times a million. Gatti, Corrales, Paez three of my four favourite boxers...







Up at the count of 3. Fuckin' 3! That was the 15th round of the most brutal Heavyweight fight anyone had ever seen. Just unreal. I can't even process how he got up so easily.


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

Trail said:


> @sasquatch What the fuck went wrong with Khan in the Prescott fight? Many claim the trainer? What do you think?


wasnt it warren that made the fight? banking on him being a usual south american knockover with a good looking record . Soon as prescott landed first jab khans legs buckled i still think prescott would of beat him any time at any weight in a rematch. Kevin mitchell showed khan how it was done (btw how would you see mitchell v khan going at lightweight?)


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

nuclear said:


> you mean like this?


Exactly like that and rather disturbed to see that someone may have made a training video on the 'technique '...

There is, in my personal opinion, no justification teaching any youngster to defend themselves in such manner.


----------



## James Figg (Jul 15, 2012)

sasquatch said:


> carl froch?


Behave yourself...


----------



## nuclear (Jun 15, 2015)

James Figg said:


> Exactly like that and rather disturbed to see that someone may have made a training video on the 'technique '...
> 
> There is, in my personal opinion, no justification teaching any youngster to defend themselves in such manner.


it's definitely odd but if it worked for those 4 Hall of Famers then it cant be that bad


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

James Figg said:


> Exactly like that and rather disturbed to see that someone may have made a training video on the 'technique '...
> 
> There is, in my personal opinion, no justification teaching any youngster to defend themselves in such manner.


not having that. cross arm defence is argueably a square shoulder roll half guard. it has been effective for years. joe frazier, norton, holmes in his late 80's career, ,jeff fenech, homocide hank, evander holyfield, archie fucking moore.

it's a well used, fairly robust form of defence. if anything it's better covering up than any other block or hand positioning. it's just poor in counters as your hands are locked up. which moore quickly put himself sideways on and thus we got a far more pronounced shoulder roll, which later became a style in itself.

i will say that it a more archaic technique. something like the double backhand, shifting and bolo punches. but still. it is effective and does have it's place.

THAT is not the worst part of the foreman design.

















^^^^ daniel mendoza's art of boxing even chose it.....though saying that, the thumb up punching technique is pretty bollocks back then.


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

nuclear said:


> it's definitely odd but if it worked for those 4 Hall of Famers then it cant be that bad


yeah exactly


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

James Figg said:


> Behave yourself...


Made my points


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

sasquatch said:


> wasnt it warren that made the fight? banking on him being a usual south american knockover with a good looking record . Soon as prescott landed first jab khans legs buckled i still think prescott would of beat him any time at any weight in a rematch. Kevin mitchell showed khan how it was done (btw how would you see mitchell v khan going at lightweight?)


Jorge Rubio recommended Prescott as the opponent, so they all blamed him afterwards

Thing is I had a wee bet on Khan losing that fight as I was a huge detractor of his matchmaking at the time and Prescott was not only the first guy he fought who was the same size/bigger but also the KO ratio, Khan had been getting dropped by blown up superfeatherweights with low KO ratios so to be this was an eye opening challenge, the bad part?? I didn't even get to see it, just saw on the tickertape that he'd been KOd in the first

Got my respect with how he picked himself up afterwards though (and I don't mean off the canvas)


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Trail said:


> Love boxers with heart times a million. Gatti, Corrales, Paez three of my four favourite boxers...


No wonder you love McCullough then :lol: even for a Belfast man he was fucking hard


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Trail said:


> This is very true.
> 
> Going back to the Prescott fight, I remember watching a ringside copy of that fight, amateur video. Khan was so fucked there. If I can find my copy I'll upload it.


That was craig watson who dropped him, this was right before Amir turned pro so definately had something to do with the soft matchmaking (not that he wasn't fighting decent fighters but they were pretty much all soft hitters at a lower weight or past it)


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> No wonder you love McCullough then :lol: even for a Belfast man he was fucking hard


No-one could drop him...Morales tried, Hamed tried.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> That was craig watson who dropped him, this was right before Amir turned pro so definately had something to do with the soft matchmaking (not that he wasn't fighting decent fighters but they were pretty much all soft hitters at a lower weight or past it)


You missed me, buddy. The video I'm talking of was a ringside video (amateur) where Breidis Prescott murdered Khan. I'll have another look to see if I can find my copy.


----------



## Barrack_Osama (Dec 31, 2016)

Technique is subjective. What eorks for some might not work for others. Pacquiao has made the most with he's and it works for him how he is always off balance but still throws combos with big power. There's no right or wrong if you can achieve success with your own technique


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Trail said:


> You missed me, buddy. The video I'm talking of was a ringside video (amateur) where Breidis Prescott murdered Khan. I'll have another look to see if I can find my copy.


I think I know the one you're talking about, is it where Khan disappears out of view when he gets dropped and they're like "OHHHH FUCKKKKKK, FUCK MEEE!"


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Trail said:


> No-one could drop him...Morales tried, Hamed tried.


Is it true Morales wanted to quit at one point in his corner during the McCullough fight?? I heard an american guy saying this

I know Morales at one point said it was one of his hardest fights, I think he hurt his fists on Waynes head

Hamed said after his fight "He's got a hard head that boy!! He's Irish, what do you expect?"


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

James Figg said:


> Oooooo, totally disagree about Gatti.
> 
> He had very underrated boxing skills because his default position was all out attack but trust me, he was far better than most mentioned on here so far.


George Foreman appears to far more underrated. He had a quality jab and knew how to set up his attacks. He's being made out to be a brawler, which he definitely wasn't.

Gatti has overrated boxing skills for the sheer fact that he could only use them when he wasn't being hit himself. As soon as he was tagged he would revert to form.

Foreman on the other hand--especially against Moorer--was able to remain composed when under attack. Only against Lyle, Ali and Young was he not able to, and one of those times it paid off and the other two times he was in against very slick fighters indeed.

Far smarter in his comeback.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm quite shocked anyone thinks Gatti had bad punching technique.


Great form. As for the whole package, very much lacking in many areas.

Saensak Muangsurin would be the best choice I think. One of the few top Muay Thai fighters that was actually a caveman, who carried over a bizarre high guard over to boxing with him and had no defence whatsoever and poor balance yet got a world title within 3 fights and multiple title defences against world class opposition with nothing more than an iron chin and sandbag fists.

Compare him to all the other Thai converts--nearly all technically sound and multi-faceted stylists--and Muangsurin looks primitive. Compare him to pretty much any world champion in boxing history and he looks just as primitive.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Khan is another one.

The only athletic gift he has is speed. Apart from the odd beauty like the body shot against Maidana, his punching form is increasingly ragged with every shot he throws, he throws too many shots with his combos, he often circles himself into a bad position, and his defence consists of either putting his hands up high and attempting to parry shots (without having the nous to do so) or trying to anticipate shots and slip in too close a proximity to danger and not having the reflexes to pull it off.

Speed and reflexes are not the same thing. People think because he had success in the Olympics that Khan must have some hidden boxing skill tucked away somewhere, but even then he was just a really fast brawler type who depended on swarming all over his opponents with punches in bunches then getting away, picking up points just because of his fast hands, endless combos and the computer scoring system.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> Is it true Morales wanted to quit at one point in his corner during the McCullough fight?? I heard an american guy saying this
> 
> I know Morales at one point said it was one of his hardest fights, I think he hurt his fists on Waynes head
> 
> Hamed said after his fight "He's got a hard head that boy!! He's Irish, what do you expect?"


Haven't heard the rumour about Morales wanting to quit in the Wayne fight. Morales was a hard fucking bastard so I'd be surprised if that was the case. Maybe more an issue of frustration. You keep smacking a bloke's head in and he keeps standing up then it's understandable.

Wayne McCullough's chin is Hagler-like. Iron doesn't even cover it. I just picked up the Pocket Rocket book, should be a good read.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Trail said:


> No-one could drop him...Morales tried, Hamed tried.


Scott Harrison also gave McCullough a pretty nasty beating but couldn't put him on his arse. McCullough was past his best and Harrison was a monster featherweight in his prime. The size and strength difference on fight night was ridiculous. McCullough's durability was freaky.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Trail said:


> Haven't heard the rumour about Morales wanting to quit in the Wayne fight. Morales was a hard fucking bastard so I'd be surprised if that was the case. Maybe more an issue of frustration. You keep smacking a bloke's head in and he keeps standing up then it's understandable.
> 
> Wayne McCullough's chin is Hagler-like. Iron doesn't even cover it. I just picked up the Pocket Rocket book, should be a good read.


It must surely be a bullshit story cooked up by McCullough and his team, or someone else. Everything we know about Erik Morales runs contrary to the idea that he'd ever look for a way out in a fight he was winning comfortably. He was in much tougher fights. Much tougher.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

rossco said:


> Scott Harrison also gave McCullough a pretty nasty beating but couldn't put him on his arse. McCullough was past his best and Harrison was a monster featherweight in his prime. The size and strength difference on fight night was ridiculous. McCullough's durability was freaky.


I'll have to have another look at the Harrison fight, Ross, you old cunt. Wayne's durability never ceased to amaze me...you could not drop him.

Could do with a thread about boxers never dropped...


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> It must surely be a bullshit story cooked up by McCullough and his team, or someone else. Everything we know about Erik Morales runs contrary to the idea that he'd ever look for a way out in a fight he was winning comfortably. He was in much tougher fights. Much tougher.


Apparently it was US fight fans that said about Morales wanting to quit. I've never heard the story...you're absolutely correct about Erik being in tougher fights than Wayne McCullough ( no disrespect to Wayne). I doubt he was on the verge of quitting.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Trail said:


> I'll have to have another look at the Harrison fight, Ross, you old cunt. Wayne's durability never ceased to amaze me...you could not drop him.
> 
> Could do with a thread about boxers never dropped...


Wayne never really had a chance. A lot of people picked him to win but it became apparent on fight night that Harrison was the much much bigger man. Harrison wasn't a ko artist but he was a clubbing heavy puncher. I remember during the post fight interview McCullough said Harrison's strength was ridiculous.

Do the thread mate. George Chuvalo, Billy Graham, Ismael Laguna and Jake LaMotta were never dropped. Oliver McCall is another. Pretty interesting to see who else wasn't.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Please tell me the thread hasn't got this long without somebody mentioning Roy Jones.

He may not for the thread title, but he is spot on for the question in the opening post of this thread.


----------



## scribbs (Dec 8, 2012)

I'll go for Dennis Andries

http://theboxingtribune.com/2013/08...eyman-who-became-a-three-time-world-champion/


----------



## Crean (May 19, 2013)

Trail said:


> Technically gifted. Got tagged against MAB because he fucked around and let his brothers dictate his training regime. Morales? He was a law unto himself. Would he have beaten Hamed? Pick 'em fight. Morales was a hard cunt.
> 
> The thing that draws me back to Hamed is his showmanship coupled with his amazing boxing talent. See also Jorge Paez, Hector Camacho.


Morales would of knocked the fuck out of Hamed imo.

Morales is my favourite Mexican fighter. Great to watch


----------



## Crean (May 19, 2013)

Steve Collins.

2 weight world champion.


----------



## hazza (Sep 2, 2013)

naseem hamed for me.

marco antonio barrera absolutely creamed him with his straight up orthodox style. an a-level fighter, the likes of which hamed had never faced before.

even larry merchant said - the style that has been so successful against lesser fighters is being exposed tonight.

i'll give hamed this though, he has got a great chin because he took everything barrera threw at him and never got knocked out.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I dont think you can be a world level boxer with bad technique tbh, maybes conoared to other great world level boxers but even domestic level fighters have pretty good technique that would make a fool of an average person even if they were an athletic person.

I do t think ive seen anyone at world level as poor as Wilder but he showed against Stiverne that he can have a good jab and judge distance well, use his feet and not over-extend. For some reason he ai t really showed that since.


----------



## Thomas Crewz (Jul 23, 2013)

Joe Calzaghe obviously the poster boy for poor punch technique. 

Really good ring general though and had stamina for days.


----------



## Slimtrae (Aug 10, 2015)

John Ruiz 2x WBA HW champ.
Technique best know for: mauling, grappling, wrestling. No major punch.

Mayorga good call. Sloppy, yet effective.


Joe Calzaghe #1. Horrible technique, looked like he was trying to hit congas fighting against Hopkins, known as Calslappy. The worst technique I can think of from champ, yet Calzaghe retired undefeated with nothing identifiable as textbook.


----------



## Curly (Aug 17, 2013)

Prince Naseem Hamed, he relied on his reflexes and power but the man had next to no technique.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

I skimmed this thread and didn't see any "love" for Leon "I don't have a driver's license" Spinks. He was one of the most awkward looking fighters I've ever seen to go as far as he did, for just a short time in the ring.


----------



## doug.ie (Jun 3, 2012)

hazza said:


> naseem hamed for me.
> 
> marco antonio barrera absolutely creamed him with his straight up orthodox style. an a-level fighter, the likes of which hamed had never faced before.
> 
> ...


agree with all of that. hated that style and loved what barerra did.

also....max bear popped into my head when first opening this thread


----------



## hazza (Sep 2, 2013)

doug.ie said:


> agree with all of that. hated that style and loved what barerra did.
> 
> also....max bear popped into my head when first opening this thread


i thought a lot of the brits would come down on me for that actually, since he was pretty much their biggest fighter at the time, besides lennox lewis. but he did have an awful boxing style and it did get exposed by barrera. i was drinking with a couple of poms back in the 90s watching a hamed fight and one of them claimed he could beat kostya tszyu. i said mate kostya would chop this cunt to pieces, and besides, they're not even in the same weight class so it'd never happen.

and barrera was the only a-class fighter he ever fought. and he walloped him easily.


----------



## doug.ie (Jun 3, 2012)

ironically (with how i felt about him)....the only time i was proper ringside for a big fight, like a sky sports main event job (was ringside for a lot of small hall shows)....was at a naseem fight....when he fought manual medina in dublin....he wasnt great that night and blamed flu afterwards.

but it shows how much i know.....to me steve robinson had a much more pleasing style to watch...but in fairness to naseem, what he did worked and took him right up to top level, even if a modern day great beat him well


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

hazza said:


> naseem hamed for me.
> 
> marco antonio barrera absolutely creamed him with his straight up orthodox style. an a-level fighter, the likes of which hamed had never faced before.
> 
> ...


Good shout out. I couldn't stand the guy or his cocky attitude and when Barrerra bitch slapped him all over the ring that night, I was in boxing nirvana. So much so that the only other fighter I've enjoyed being beaten since then was when Adrian Broner ran into Marcos Maidana and got a boxing lesson that had him looking like he wanted to run home and hide behind mama's apron and cry.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

hazza said:


> naseem hamed for me.
> 
> marco antonio barrera absolutely creamed him with his straight up orthodox style. an a-level fighter, the likes of which hamed had never faced before.
> 
> ...


True but if he fought him again he might well have been. And I think Morales would have nailed him to the floor. Too tall,too long armed and too Mexican. 
Hamed was a terrific fighter and great to watch. Beat some very good men,but look at Kevin Kelley. Still a hell of a fighter but slightly past best when he fought Hamed.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> Good shout out. I couldn't stand the guy or his cocky attitude and when Barrerra bitch slapped him all over the ring that night, I was in boxing nirvana. So much so that the only other fighter I've enjoyed being beaten since then was when Adrian Broner ran into Marcos Maidana and got a boxing lesson that had him looking like he wanted to run home and hide behind mama's apron and cry.


I didn't like his attitude either. He once had a proper go at Colin Hart for no apparent reason. He was in general a brave fighter but you could see the cracks appearing before the Barrera fight. The cocky attitude was somewhat tempered,he even admitted the possibility of defeat,never jumped the top rope,big delay getting into the ring,got somewhat bullied himself during the fight. Muslim diatribe instead of a magic carpet.
Some similarities,as you say,with Broner. No coward,but a bit of a bully.
Regarding the technique thing Im not one for watching old fights. But Rocky Graziano seemed to go a hell of a long way by being very crude.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Boxfan said:


> I didn't like his attitude either. He once had a proper go at Colin Hart for no apparent reason. He was in general a brave fighter but you could see the cracks appearing before the Barrera fight. The cocky attitude was somewhat tempered,he even admitted the possibility of defeat,never jumped the top rope,big delay getting into the ring,got somewhat bullied himself during the fight. Muslim diatribe instead of a magic carpet.
> Some similarities,as you say,with Broner. No coward,but a bit of a bully.
> Regarding the technique thing Im not one for watching old fights. But Rocky Graziano seemed to go a hell of a long way by being very crude.


Graziano was a crude fighter for sure, at least in many of the videos I've seen of his fights, but he was one tough SOB. He retired a couple months before I was even born in 52. I remember watching him make appearances on the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson was the host. The guy was a riot and really had no pretenses about himself.


----------



## Nifty.Tech (Jan 20, 2014)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Joe Calzaghe obviously the poster boy for poor punch technique.
> 
> Really good ring general though and had stamina for days.


Go watch some of Joes earlier fights, he could punch and sat down on his shots a lot more. The guys hands were crippled hence why he slapped a lot later on his career, it was nothing to do with technique he just couldn't.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

scribbs said:


> I'll go for Dennis Andries
> 
> http://theboxingtribune.com/2013/08...eyman-who-became-a-three-time-world-champion/


I remember he looked absolutely rubbishh when I first saw him. But obviously was a very brave fighter,very fit and very strong. Then he decided after getting bounced up and down by Tommy Hearns to go to the Kronk gym. In terms of how much he improved him Id say Emmanuel Stewards biggest success story Scribbs. Didn't look half as crude and they actually made a bit of a boxer out of him and infinitely harder man to beat.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

And Ive not read the article.


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Joe Calzaghe obviously the poster boy for poor punch technique.
> 
> Really good ring general though and had stamina for days.





gumbo2176 said:


> Good shout out. I couldn't stand the guy or his cocky attitude and when Barrerra bitch slapped him all over the ring that night, I was in boxing nirvana. So much so that the only other fighter I've enjoyed being beaten since then was when Adrian Broner ran into Marcos Maidana and got a boxing lesson that had him looking like he wanted to run home and hide behind mama's apron and cry.


Calzaghe is a better version of Nick Diaz in MMA, and guess what, he inspired him, you might even see the same Combos by both men in these videos


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Shawn Porter warrants mention here, I think.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

Has anybody mentioned Carlos Maussa?


----------



## REDC (Dec 12, 2015)

Drew101 said:


> Shawn Porter warrants mention here, I think.


Porter has excellent skills. Technique and tactics. How he roughed up Granaddos on the ropes with those sidesteps was a work of art. Crafty IMO.


----------



## REDC (Dec 12, 2015)

Mayorga but I just saw that he was already mentioned by @paloalto00


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

REDC said:


> Porter has excellent skills. Technique and tactics. How he roughed up Granaddos on the ropes with those sidesteps was a work of art. Crafty IMO.


The wide looping shots he throws leave a lot to be desired in terms of aesthetics; but he's really effective at what he does.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Haggis said:


> George Foreman for me. You watch his fights back in the day, he is crude as hell. But certainly effective.
> 
> Who are some other names who achieved HOF-level careers while not having A+ technique - having much of their success coming from physical attributes?
> 
> :hat


Marciano


----------



## scorpion (Jun 24, 2013)

sam soliman (spelling)


----------



## Lampley (Jun 4, 2013)

There are two ways to approach this question. One would be to note guys who lacked orthodox technique, which would implicate people like Calzaghe, Hamed, et al. But I choose to look at it differently, because they both were true to a technique that was unique to them. Even in the MAB bout, Hamed had enough juice that Barrera generally showed him a lot of respect. It was something like 8-4, not a total wipeout, albeit MAB loosened up at the end and starting embarrassing him. 

Fighters I consider to have bad technique are people who were inconsistent or else use a technique that actually works against their strengths. Thus, I would say Paul Williams deserves mention here, because despite mutant height and reach, plus some speed and power, he typically gave up distance and left his chin in the air. The difference in performance between Quintana 1 & 2, plus Martinez 1 & 2, just indicates how inconsistent he was. Anyone could get caught with a shot, but his lack of technique made him very unpredictable.

Gamboa is another one. Tremendous talent who did not have a technique he viably could apply against someone like Crawford. He was a massive disappointment.


----------



## Atlanta (Sep 17, 2012)

Bryan Vera is/was essentially a punching bag that waited for his opponents to run out of gas.


----------



## Sister Sledge (Oct 22, 2012)

John Ruiz.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

The Kraken said:


> Calzaghe is a better version of Nick Diaz in MMA, and guess what, he inspired him, you might even see the same Combos by both men in these videos


That Diaz video is nothing short of sad from a punch technique demonstration. I especially liked the part where he's winging those roundhouse punches to his opponents sides with his head wide open for a counter, but his opponents are so bad at punching they don't capitalize on it.

Diaz has to be one of the worst punchers stylistically I've ever seen and comes of as rank amateurish.


----------



## desertlizard (Dec 29, 2015)

Arguell0


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

desertlizard said:


> Arguell0


.......You in the wrong thread?


----------



## desertlizard (Dec 29, 2015)

Sweet Pea said:


> .......You in the wrong thread?


n0pe


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

desertlizard said:


> n0pe


Arguello was one of the most fundamentally sound champs ever. Not to say he was flawless as a fighter overall (his plodding pace and so-so defensive reflexes could be a problem against the wrong type of opponent), but for punching technique/variety, footwork and balance, stance, etc. there was hardly a thing he did wrong.


----------



## desertlizard (Dec 29, 2015)

Sweet Pea said:


> Arguello was one of the most fundamentally sound champs ever. Not to say he was flawless as a fighter overall (his plodding pace and so-so defensive reflexes could be a problem against the wrong type of opponent), but for punching technique/variety, footwork and balance, stance, etc. there was hardly a thing he did wrong.


n0t a pr0blem with any 0f that, i just always f0und his stance in the ring kind 0f weird, champ 0f his pe0ple 0f c0urse n0 questi0n ab0ut that


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

desertlizard said:


> Arguell0


What???


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Bazooka Limon


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

desertlizard said:


> n0t a pr0blem with any 0f that, i just always f0und his stance in the ring kind 0f weird, champ 0f his pe0ple 0f c0urse n0 questi0n ab0ut that


Your opinion of Arguello is as ridiculous as your typing problem.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

doug.ie said:


> agree with all of that. hated that style and loved what barerra did.
> 
> also....max bear popped into my head when first opening this thread


MAB's owning of Hamed was one of the best nights ever for boxing.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Boxfan said:


> True but if he fought him again he might well have been. And I think Morales would have nailed him to the floor. Too tall,too long armed and too Mexican.
> Hamed was a terrific fighter and great to watch. Beat some very good men,but look at Kevin Kelley. Still a hell of a fighter but slightly past best when he fought Hamed.


What's up Boxfan, how are you?


----------



## desertlizard (Dec 29, 2015)

Phantom said:


> Your opinion of Arguello is as ridiculous as your typing problem.


y0u g0tta admit his stance in the ring was weird, n0t saying he had the w0rst technique,,,


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

Phantom said:


> What's up Boxfan, how are you?


Im good Phantom. Been away for a while,made a few posts on the British section yesterday. Hope you are OK mate.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Boxfan said:


> Im good Phantom. Been away for a while,made a few posts on the British section yesterday. Hope you are OK mate.


Everything's ok bud!


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

desertlizard said:


> y0u g0tta admit his stance in the ring was weird, n0t saying he had the w0rst technique,,,


Only thing I'll admit is that you have a nice avatar.:thumbsup


----------



## Slimtrae (Aug 10, 2015)

Was Mayorga mentioned? My pick


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Foreman's technique really wasn't so primitive. The ability George had in cutting off the ring is a case in point...few heavies in history could match him, which was why Ali resorted to the rope-a-dope rather than trying to dance vs George. Foreman looked kinda crude vs Lyle, but he was somewhat of a head case in that fight...having rebounded from Zaire and that 5 man circus that he engaged in. If you watch his performances vs Frazier (both times) and especially Norton, you'll see that he was a first class executioner...there was no escaping him. Only Jimmy Young was able to deal with him without having to use a rope-a-dope type of tactic.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Slimtrae said:


> Was Mayorga mentioned? My pick


Good choice!


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Foreman's technique really wasn't so primitive. The ability George had in cutting off the ring is a case in point...few heavies in history could match him, which was why Ali resorted to the rope-a-dope rather than trying to dance vs George. Foreman looked kinda crude vs Lyle, but he was somewhat of a head case in that fight...having rebounded from Zaire and that 5 man circus that he engaged in. If you watch his performances vs Frazier (both times) and especially Norton, you'll see that he was a first class executioner...there was no escaping him. Only Jimmy Young was able to deal with him without having to use a rope-a-dope type of tactic.


Do you think George may have struggled a bit with boxing types mate? I know you mention the differences between the way Ali and Young fought him but they were both quick and clever and didn't try to slug with him. Before Ali fought him he mentioned how tired Foreman was against Gregorio Peralta,who was a quick,clever,tough LIGHT HEAVY.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Boxfan said:


> Do you think George may have struggled a bit with boxing types mate? I know you mention the differences between the way Ali and Young fought him but they were both quick and clever and didn't try to slug with him. Before Ali fought him he mentioned how tired Foreman was against Gregorio Peralta,who was a quick,clever,tough LIGHT HEAVY.


Excellent points. I don't think just any boxer could have beaten him however...the three that you mentioned, Ali, Young and Peralta all had a factor that enhanced their game...great chins. IMO, I don't think a Chris Byrd, to name one example, would have fared as well with the young Foreman, as I don't think he had a comparable chin compared to Ali, Young and Peralta. Anyone without a decent set of whiskers would have been walked down...the ring cut off on them and summarily caught and destroyed...again IMO.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Foreman's technique really wasn't so primitive. The ability George had in cutting off the ring is a case in point...few heavies in history could match him, which was why Ali resorted to the rope-a-dope rather than trying to dance vs George. Foreman looked kinda crude vs Lyle, but he was somewhat of a head case in that fight...having rebounded from Zaire and that 5 man circus that he engaged in. If you watch his performances vs Frazier (both times) and especially Norton, you'll see that he was a first class executioner...there was no escaping him. Only Jimmy Young was able to deal with him without having to use a rope-a-dope type of tactic.


Oh bullshit. He was good at cutting off the ring sure, but every time he started exchanging punches, his technique went out the window. He just backed himself to win every single shootout through superior size, co-ordination, power and chin. And he was right just about every time.


































Awesome performances and he's brutally KOing top-level level guys here, but he's also throwing wiiiiiiide, lunging bombs where both his heels are planted flat on the the ground, every punch starts from his beltline (or below) and there is absolutely zero thought or consideration for what might be coming back.

:hat


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

:hat[/QUOTE]


Haggis said:


> Oh bullshit. He was good at cutting off the ring sure, but every time he started exchanging punches, his technique went out the window. He just backed himself to win every single shootout through superior size, co-ordination, power and chin. And he was right just about every time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're basically arguing with yourself..no where did I say that George, especially the younger George, never got wild or sloppy..in fact, I alluded to it in my post, referring to the Lyle fight...but he wasn't generally as wild as he was for instance in that brutal, near beheading of Joe King Roman. Truth is, the Foreman of the 70's was nowhere near as wild and crude as you say he was..it was always his tendency to lob wide, lunging bombs, but if you check out his signature performances vs Frazier (both of them) and Norton, there was a brutal efficiency in his work...and a few wrinkles brought forth from the tutoring of Sandy Saddler and Archie Moore. They built upon his strengths...the foundation that was already there...that brute strength...and they knew that they weren't going to transform him into an accurate, precision punch placing type of Joe Louis, who rationed his bombs. Instead, there were subtle refinements in his punch delivery, especially in the use of GF's massively effective uppercut. Foreman was also quite effective in using his two hands to push away an onrushing opponent...both stopping the opponent's offense, as well as knocking him off balance. This he did most effectively both times vs Frazier, but also in another earlier fight vs Boone Kirkman...actually knocking Kirkman to the canvas in the 1st round of their bout. Again, a brutally effective tactic based on his great strength.
Foreman is not the best choice for a fighter "most lacking in technique"...and again, I hearken back to his highly effective ring cutting ability...something you failed to acknowledge until I mentioned it to you.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

PivotPunch said:


> Mayorga.
> 
> Foreman was highly skilled.
> He became the oldest HW champ ever ffs it was hardly his youth that won him the fight and every HW can punch the the 90s HW division was full of huge punchers.
> I can't even comprehend how someone could claim he had bad technique.


Same here...and Mayorga is a much better pick for this thread.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Same here...and Mayorga is a much better pick for this thread.


Mayorga had no technique, but neither did he have anything close to the level of success that Foreman did. He had Forrest's number, but he was nowhere close to building a resume like Foreman did.

:hat


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I always found Humberto to be super crude to watch.


He was rather crude, but he rode the crest of that "crude wave" all the way to the lt, fly title. What separates him from a fighter more deserving of this thread is his ability to adapt and radically change his style, as he did after that sensational ko loss to Michael Carbajal. After that loss, he became a more conservative, points scoring, defensive boxer...a counter puncher basically....sort of like a lower case Victor Galindez, for instance. Not only was this a radical departure from his original, slugging, kill or be killed style, but he was rather successful with it, beating Carbajal by decisions in two subsequent bouts.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Haggis said:


> Mayorga had no technique, but neither did he have anything close to the level of success that Foreman did. He had Forrest's number, but he was nowhere close to building a resume like Foreman did.
> 
> :hat


Close, but no cigar....you see, Mayorga had virtually* no skills*...except a punch, bravado, and for a while, a chin...again, you're comparing apples to oranges....and still giving no credit to Foreman.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> You're basically arguing with yourself..no where did I say that George, especially the younger George, never got wild or sloppy..in fact, I alluded to it in my post, referring to the Lyle fight...


:thumbsup



Phantom said:


> but he wasn't generally as wild as he was for instance in that brutal, near beheading of Joe King Roman. Truth is, the Foreman of the 70's was nowhere near as wild and crude as you say he was..it was always his tendency to lob wide, lunging bombs, but if you check out his signature performances vs Frazier (both of them) and Norton, there was a brutal efficiency in his work...and a few wrinkles brought forth from the tutoring of Sandy Saddler and Archie Moore. They built upon his strengths...the foundation that was already there...that brute strength...and they knew that they weren't going to transform him into an accurate, precision punch placing type of Joe Louis, who rationed his bombs. Instead, there were subtle refinements in his punch delivery, especially in the use of GF's massively effective uppercut. Foreman was also quite effective in using his two hands to push away an onrushing opponent...both stopping the opponent's offense, as well as knocking him off balance. This he did most effectively both times vs Frazier, but also in another earlier fight vs Boone Kirkman...actually knocking Kirkman to the canvas in the 1st round of their bout. Again, a brutally effective tactic based on his great strength.
> Foreman is not the best choice for a fighter "most lacking in technique"...and again, I hearken back to his highly effective ring cutting ability...something you failed to acknowledge until I mentioned it to you.


Look at those 4 gifs above.

Can you point out the moments where he had both of his gloves above his beltline at the same time? He's mostly flatfooted, winging wiiiiiiiide hooks, leaning forwards with his face _way_ out in front of his feet and neither of his gloves within two feet of his chin to defend himself.

And which trainer encourages a young fighter to establish distance by fully extending both arms out in front of you and shoving your opponent backwards by his shoulders? No trainer will teach that technique. Why? Because you have to be a physical prodigy to get away with it. You have to be bigger and MUCH physically stronger than your opponent, and you have to have a cinder block for a chin. Otherwise you're getting knocked out, because shoving opponents back like that is poor technique. Unless you have all sorts of dominating physical advantages, like Foreman did. Just like Jon Jones can get out of engagements by simply extending his hand out fully and backing up in a straight line - because he has an 84 inch reach, meaning he's a 6'4" man with the wingspan of a 7 footer. Which means that that poor technique actually works very well for him, even though anyone else in the division who consistently uses it gets pancaked in short order.

Besides, this isn't "Which boxer had the worst technique?" It's "Which boxer had _the most success_ with the worst technique." Foreman is a two-time linear HW champion and nobody has him outside the HW all-time top 10. *Massive* success for the crudity of his technique.

:hat


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

These threads are always gonna be highly subjective because of the "poor vs. unorthodox" conundrum. It's a more difficult argument than you might think. One might say "Foreman's style wouldn't have worked if not for his physical attributes", but how about, say, Aaron Pryor? Which of his physical attributes do you attest his success to? And would you say he had "good technique" from a fundamental standpoint?


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Haggis said:


> :thumbsup
> 
> Look at those 4 gifs above.
> 
> ...


----------



## doug.ie (Jun 3, 2012)

couple spring to my mind are naseem..and max baer
oh..and maybe kiochi wajima


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

doug.ie said:


> couple spring to my mind are naseem..and max baer
> oh..and maybe* kiochi wajima*


Really?


----------



## doug.ie (Jun 3, 2012)

i have an embedded memory of wajima as being a japanesee rocky balboa.....mind you he had that crouch down and leap up punch which used to remind me of what randolf turpin did


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> but how about, say, Aaron Pryor? Which of his physical attributes do you attest his success to?


Stamina, recuperation powers, chin, foot speed, hamedesque balance.

Without them you can't replicate what he did.



Sweet Pea said:


> And would you say he had "good technique" from a fundamental standpoint?


Pryor was a combination of an unorthodox style and a sloppily/loosely executed conventional techniques.

Overall, no, he's not a good example for a young fighter.


----------



## paloalto00 (Jun 7, 2013)

Mayorga


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


>


If a fighter doesn't have Foreman's natural physical gifts of size, freakish strength/power and a cement block for a chin, do you see him having much success with Foreman's technique?

Surely an indicator of good technique is that it is a good base for success independent of an individual fighter's physical gifts?

:hat


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Haggis said:


> If a fighter doesn't have Foreman's natural physical gifts of size, freakish strength/power and a cement block for a chin, do you see him having much success with Foreman's technique?
> 
> Surely an indicator of good technique is that it is a good base for success independent of an individual fighter's physical gifts?
> 
> :hat


Only Ali and Jimmy young had the intrinsic skills and ability to effectively exploit the young GF's formidable power and menace, as you know. Both had, in addition to their slippery defensive skills and cleverness, stellar chins. You know all about Ali's chin, but a word about Jimmy Young's chin.....On February 19th, 1973, Jimmy Young was fed to the wolves by his management in his *11th pro bout* against a relatively young and fresh Earnie Shavers and suffered his only real stoppage defeat....a three kd tko. A rematch fought over a year later saw Young achieve a moral victory of sorts when he held Shavers to a draw...after being decked early in the bout. Since that fight, all the way until the end of his career, Jimmy Young was never decked again...nor was he ever truly stopped again,....forget about that bloody tko loss to Cooney, as it was solely due to that horrible cut Young suffered in round 3. Cooney never hurt or came anywhere close to putting Jimmy on the deck. Both Ali and Young were able to navigate the choppy waters of adversity that came their way when they fought big George....because of that combination of cleverness and a great chin.
Boxing is all about styles..and of one fighter more successfully imposing his style over that of another fighter's particular style....in that physical dialogue called a boxing match. Truthfully, over the years, I've seen terribly few fighters who had that necessary combination of defensive skill, cleverness and a chin...and/or resiliency...to defeat the young George Foreman....including those who defeated him in his latter day "second career"....Holyfield, Morrison, and certainly not Briggs.
Sometimes good technique goes right out the window when tapped on the chin. Boxing sometimes makes no sense at all.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Only Ali and Jimmy young had the intrinsic skills and ability to effectively exploit the young GF's formidable power and menace, as you know. Both had, in addition to their slippery defensive skills and cleverness, stellar chins. You know all about Ali's chin, but a word about Jimmy Young's chin.....On February 19th, 1973, Jimmy Young was fed to the wolves by his management in his *11th pro bout* against a relatively young and fresh Earnie Shavers and suffered his only real stoppage defeat....a three kd tko. A rematch fought over a year later saw Young achieve a moral victory of sorts when he held Shavers to a draw...after being decked early in the bout. Since that fight, all the way until the end of his career, Jimmy Young was never decked again...nor was he ever truly stopped again,....forget about that bloody tko loss to Cooney, as it was solely due to that horrible cut Young suffered in round 3. Cooney never hurt or came anywhere close to putting Jimmy on the deck. Both Ali and Young were able to navigate the choppy waters of adversity that came their way when they fought big George....because of that combination of cleverness and a great chin.
> Boxing is all about styles..and of one fighter more successfully imposing his style over that of another fighter's particular style....in that physical dialogue called a boxing match. Truthfully, over the years, I've seen terribly few fighters who had that necessary combination of defensive skill, cleverness and a chin...and/or resiliency...to defeat the young George Foreman....including those who defeated him in his latter day "second career"....Holyfield, Morrison, and certainly not Briggs.
> Sometimes good technique goes right out the window when tapped on the chin. Boxing sometimes makes no sense at all.


Lot of words to avoid saying that walking forward in a straight line face-first with both hands below your waistline and your chin up, is a surefire way to never make it to the big leagues if you don't have Foreman-esque natural physical abilities. :thumbsup

:hat


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

George Foreman was unique...his attributes of a concrete chin, immense physical strength and great, blunt force power...all added up to a perfect storm that most of his opponents couldn't deal with...may they had some, or most of the necessary keys to defeating George, but once they were hit, manhandled, cornered...like I said, their "superior" technique sorta just went out the window. The purist, negative defensive master, like Jimmy Young, was able to pull it off because he never was one to foolishly succumb to "heroics" and try to punch it out with Foreman...no, his fanatical negativity and survivor's mentality allowed him to persevere, much like Joey Maxim did vs SRR in 1952.
Foreman's natural, brute assets were enhanced greatly by his learning those subtle, physical moves shown in those last two vids I posted. These new wrinkles made him one extremely dangerous and effective customer. I first noticed those moves when Foreman met George Chuvalo...which I watched live on tv. Foreman was manipulating the onrushing Chuvalo nicely...extending his gloved hands out to stifle, redirect and stymie the Canadian...even putting Chuvalo off balance. All this worked like a charm coupled with Foreman's massive strength and made most of Chuvalo's offense rather ineffective until the 3rd round stoppage.
_*Not every big, strong power puncher has all the physical gifts, the wherewithal or the chin to effectively emulate George Foreman...the young George Foreman, that is IMO.*_


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Haggis said:


> Lot of words to avoid saying that walking forward in a straight line face-first with both hands below your waistline and your chin up, is a surefire way to never make it to the big leagues if you don't have Foreman-esque natural physical abilities. :thumbsup
> 
> :hat


Just read my last post.


----------

