PRYOR AND HAMED - BOXING'S MOST SUCCESFUL POOR TECHNICIANS???

Never seen two guys who consistently punched off the wrong foot, consistently threw punches off balance, two guys consistently wide open.. and two guys who did everything wrong-right!!

If you were to write a manual on Boxing their styles would be polar opposites to what you'd put in. But hey who cares.....they did the business...

My question is are they the most succesfully despite being technically unsound ATG's??... and who belongs on a list with or above them???

Very interesting article, Truss. I do think, though, that there's a fine line between being a poor technician and simply being unorthodox, and it's open to debate which side of the line these two would fall. For instance, Hamed may have got himself in a tangle now and then with his unorthodox stance, but at the same time he often used his footwork beautifully to create unusual angles for knockout blows, a sign of real skill. You could also argue that his freakish punch for a Featherweight showed great technical skill, too; punchers may be born, but it still took great skill for him to master the art of the one punch knockout the way that he did.

Likewise with Pryor, while he did a lot of things differently to the classical description, his ability to stalk an opponent and cut off ring space was perfect and as good as anyone has done it since Henry Armstrong.

As I said, I think it's a grey area and matter of opinion. Using your criteria, though, I'd say that of today's fighters Froch is a good example. His movements forwards are like giant steps rather than subtle shuffles, his jab is lifted from a low guard rather than being launched straight, and he has no concept of short punching, often throwing swinging haymakers which he leans in to. But it hasn't stopped him from having an excellent career so far and, for the most part, being too good for his nearest rivals.

I would probably go back to the era where the transition is between bareknuckle and gloved.

Guys like Sullivan if he counts.

Valuev of the modern era I might add

I'd nominate Roy Jones with his lunging, pulling away from punches, crossed feet, multiple hooks in succession etc.

I'd go with Ali.

If we measure him by the text book, he did just about everything ' wrong ' and prompted Foreman, among others, to say that he had no defence. Pulling back from the jab, sticking his elbow out when preparing to throw the uppercut, rarely working to the body, etc., etc.

His phenomenal and unorthodox talent made a mockery of these ' deficiencies, ' however, and, as Eddie Futch said :

" Ali shows you his mistakes and then beats you with them. "