Some people just hit harder.. myth or fact?

I'd actually say that Prince had excellent balance, uncommonly so. He found angles and threw powerful shot's from positions that should of seriously compromised his balance, yet they didn't.

As for "proper technique", holistically speaking there is no such thing, it's speculative and opinionated at best. There's "effective" technique, and if it ain't effective then it ain't proper........ but if it is, well....... who's to say it's not proper?

Just my opinion. Proper technique is more about developing the base fundamentals, it's applicability is most relevant as a newbie and becomes less relevant as the individual fighter progresses. At the "elite" level, it's nothing more than a reference point for lesser fighters to emulate in their development.

Damn good post.
 
I'd actually say that Prince had excellent balance, uncommonly so. He found angles and threw powerful shot's from positions that should of seriously compromised his balance, yet they didn't.

As for "proper technique", holistically speaking there is no such thing, it's speculative and opinionated at best. There's "effective" technique, and if it ain't effective then it ain't proper........ but if it is, well....... who's to say it's not proper?

Just my opinion. Proper technique is more about developing the base fundamentals, it's applicability is most relevant as a newbie and becomes less relevant as the individual fighter progresses. At the "elite" level, it's nothing more than a reference point for lesser fighters to emulate in their development.

Prince Nasseem Hamed hit the deck quite a few times in his career. While he can punch from very unorthodox positions, like i said before most of the time imo it is his athleticism masked that fact. Now compare that to George Foreman, who only hit the deck like 4 times in his career, and he fight in the heavyweight division. Now he's the one that know excellent balance.

As for the proper and effective techniques, imho they are techniques that people at large can train or perform, without the need of specific attributes. Of course, with certain people they have their own version of techniques, but if it required specific attributes like speed or power or reflexes that cannot be found in common population and only specific physical specimen, then to me they are not "proper" or "effective" technique. Of course, this is up to debate as someone could argue a case about effectiveness vs efficiency.

With the last one, i slightly disagree with you a bit because i think even at the highest level proper techniques still very much matters.
 
Proper technique is more about developing the base fundamentals, it's applicability is most relevant as a newbie and becomes less relevant as the individual fighter progresses. At the "elite" level, it's nothing more than a reference point for lesser fighters to emulate in their development.

Well put.
 
I'd actually say that Prince had excellent balance, uncommonly so. He found angles and threw powerful shot's from positions that should of seriously compromised his balance, yet they didn't.

As for "proper technique", holistically speaking there is no such thing, it's speculative and opinionated at best. There's "effective" technique, and if it ain't effective then it ain't proper........ but if it is, well....... who's to say it's not proper?

Just my opinion. Proper technique is more about developing the base fundamentals, it's applicability is most relevant as a newbie and becomes less relevant as the individual fighter progresses. At the "elite" level, it's nothing more than a reference point for lesser fighters to emulate in their development.

I'd agree with NLM that his balance was awful a lot of times, he threw shots from a variety of angles & positions that did compromise his balance, not enough to make him fall - but I disagree with NLM saying it was shit boxing technique - unorthodox yes - if it was shit like NLM said it wouldn't have worked - unorthodox from the traditional stand-point yes - not shit because it worked pretty well for him throughout his career. Of course though his athleticism & physical attributes had alot to do with it - but this is usually the case with most fighters - nearly every fighter will use his athleticism or attributes when fighting.

Would I teach someone his way of boxing if I was a qualified boxing instructor - probably not - because it's not the norm & not everyone has that ability - but not because it's against traditional boxing technique ---- the fact that it is, means there is stuff outside of the traditional mindset that is effective & can be made to work - to me anything that is effective shouldn't be discarded.
 
I'd agree with NLM that his balance was awful a lot of times, he threw shots from a variety of angles & positions that did compromise his balance, not enough to make him fall - but I disagree with NLM saying it was shit boxing technique - unorthodox yes - if it was shit like NLM said it wouldn't have worked - unorthodox from the traditional stand-point yes - not shit because it worked pretty well for him throughout his career. Of course though his athleticism & physical attributes had alot to do with it - but this is usually the case with most fighters - nearly every fighter will use his athleticism or attributes when fighting.

Would I teach someone his way of boxing if I was a qualified boxing instructor - probably not - because it's not the norm & not everyone has that ability - but not because it's against traditional boxing technique ---- the fact that it is, means there is stuff outside of the traditional mindset that is effective & can be made to work - to me anything that is effective shouldn't be discarded.

Well said. I guess it's in how you'd define balance. Was Prince often in positions that were compromising of his balance, yes. However, he still had the ability to remain balanced enough in those positions to generate power and strike a fairly confined and small target....... so is that indeed, "bad balance"? eh, IMO a reasonable argument exists for either yes/no.

Take for example a Capoiera fighter, many positions they put themselves in are not naturally balanced positions, yet they use inertia or movement to keep balanced in those awkward positions. Same could be said for many a technique (Kung Fu is a prime example as well), particularly those that involve spinning or require inertia to create a center of "balance" from a naturally unbalanced position. I guess I see Prince's ability much the same, yes, he put himself in positions that naturally compromised his balance yet was able to use movement or inertia to create enough balance that he could generate powerful strikes to a small target from those positions.

Nonetheless, I agree 100% and think you make a very valid point that is essentially at the center of this debate. Unorthodox techniques or "poor technique" from a traditionalist perspective should not be confused with "ineffective" technique. Effective technique is determined by the individual practitioners.
 
In psychology there is a concept called the self actualizing tendancy. It is suggested that a child with a slight advantage in an area will receive greater praise than their fellows and that they will enjoy their relative success. This results in greater practice in that area which leads to a greater and greater differentiation from the norm.

One can argue that this is a result of natural qualities, and it is, in the sense that all attributes, from ability to learn to physical strength, are fundamentally genetic in their basis. HOWEVER, it is the interaction with the environment, experience, that causes these potentials to grow into the heavy hands discussed here.

There are freaks, geniuses, abnormalities; these however are uncommon. Natural variability in humans is markably small. Their experience is not. Two people of same size and weight will hit very differently if one is a blacksmith and the other a florist.

Saying punching power is natural, for me, is akin to suggesting experience is nature, to be honest any distinction in my mind, from a philosophic point of view, is arbitrary; but in a practical sense there is a world of difference. In my opinion, practically, a heavy hitter is like 99% of the population born and then made like 1%.
 
Last edited:
You can improve punching power to an extent, with proper technique and training imo; But I think power is something your born with. You either have it or you dont.
 
I'd actually say that Prince had excellent balance, uncommonly so. He found angles and threw powerful shot's from positions that should of seriously compromised his balance, yet they didn't.

As for "proper technique", holistically speaking there is no such thing, it's speculative and opinionated at best. There's "effective" technique, and if it ain't effective then it ain't proper........ but if it is, well....... who's to say it's not proper?

Just my opinion. Proper technique is more about developing the base fundamentals, it's applicability is most relevant as a newbie and becomes less relevant as the individual fighter progresses. At the "elite" level, it's nothing more than a reference point for lesser fighters to emulate in their development.

this is a perfect explanation, well put post sullivan.

Another thing people often don't talk about, is that the "shit technique" threatens in strange ways and saps the opponents energy and offers unique problems for the opponenet. It's -very- frustrating to box someone like this.

"correct technique" is easier to prepare for as well.
 
Another thing people often don't talk about, is that the "shit technique" threatens in strange ways and saps the opponents energy and offers unique problems for the opponenet. It's -very- frustrating to box someone like this.

"correct technique" is easier to prepare for as well.

Well said, very true!

I liken it to sparring inexperienced guys, or newbs. It's not the technical shot's you have to be mindful of, it's the ones that newbs end up throwing all off balance and awkward that end up being the shot's that catch the more experienced guys.

Certainly another commonly overlooked factor in fighting a guy with "unorthodox technique". How do you prepare, "technically" to fight a guy who's not....... It's terribly frustrating! You can find sparring partners that are faster, hit harder, defend better, etc..... than most technical opponents. But finding one who can closely emulate a very unorthodox fighter is extremely difficult to do. Finding a sparring partner for a guy like Machida, Silva, Jon Jones, etc.... is extremely difficult, and practically impossible without going outside the venue of competition (MMA). You end up being forced to look outside of the sport your competing in, then you have to find 3-4 fighters to emulate any 1 particular part of their game and piece it together as best you can.
 
There definitely was a method to the madness when talking about the technique of Prince Naseem. It wasn't as if he was wild and didn't possess any strategy. It just wasn't orthodox, is all. Apparently most of the fighters that come out of St. Thomas's are taught some variant of the footwork (and the more "haymaker" like punches) that Naseem used.
 
Well said, very true!

I liken it to sparring inexperienced guys, or newbs. It's not the technical shot's you have to be mindful of, it's the ones that newbs end up throwing all off balance and awkward that end up being the shot's that catch the more experienced guys.

Certainly another commonly overlooked factor in fighting a guy with "unorthodox technique". How do you prepare, "technically" to fight a guy who's not....... It's terribly frustrating! You can find sparring partners that are faster, hit harder, defend better, etc..... than most technical opponents. But finding one who can closely emulate a very unorthodox fighter is extremely difficult to do. Finding a sparring partner for a guy like Machida, Silva, Jon Jones, etc.... is extremely difficult, and practically impossible without going outside the venue of competition (MMA). You end up being forced to look outside of the sport your competing in, then you have to find 3-4 fighters to emulate any 1 particular part of their game and piece it together as best you can.

You and I discussed this before...pad holders...drill partners all work on things from a tech perspective; so when facing a guy who does things out of order...or not at all or has a weird set up or delivery. It essentially takes you back to step one...and puts him a step ahead; he is ready for you because your doing what most people do. The question becomes how well how fast do you do it how consistent..how much; but what your doing is already laid out.

A guy who does the opp requires you to make adjustment def and off because he wont be quite where he is supposed to be when you attack and wont attack quite when he is supposed to orhow he is supposed to.

How the hell do you think jardiness made it so long in the ufc.
 
Last edited:
There definitely was a method to the madness when talking about the technique of Prince Naseem. It wasn't as if he was wild and didn't possess any strategy. It just wasn't orthodox, is all. Apparently most of the fighters that come out of St. Thomas's are taught some variant of the footwork (and the more "haymaker" like punches) that Naseem used.

Unfortunately it proved largely ineffective for anyone but Nasseem though.......
 
In fairness to Ingle, there was a predecessor to Hamed. His name was Herol "Bomber" Graham, and he was also a World-level fighter, sort of a Southpaw, less heavy-handed version of Naseem. Same system, though. So it's not as if that system had no integrity.

Oh, and to answer the thread title, FACT.
 
Last edited:
In the same way that some guys are just faster, or some guys are just stronger, yes. Some people, given the same training, etc. are simply going to be better at a given activity than others.

That having been said, nobody is going to just roll out of bed and win the Olympic 100m, nobody is going to dominate a powerlifting meet without a ton of weight training first, and nobody is going to be a good fighter without a ton of training to hone that natural talent.

...but yes...there's certainly something that makes certain people special. Again, they still need all the training, technique, and such to really make use of it, but some guys just have "it."

I'd agree with this... It's a combination of both. I think core strength is a major factor and some people are naturally stronger in that area.

Some guys just seem to have a knack for power though... Dan Henderson is a good example. His background is in wrestling not striking (although he obviously trains to strike) and he's not very technical but he's always had big time, one punch KO power.

Also, look at Tank Abbott... He was out of shape as fuck and not technical at all but he always had monster punching power.
 
"punching harder" really means more "power" behind the punch, torque, retraction, etc.

Its all about technique and obviously weight behind the punch.

So, it all comes down to specific attributes. Now some people are genetically better "punchers" but only because they have the specific attributes that power punchers tend to have.

All in all, its a myth. Punching power is a skill just like math. While some are better, it can be learned, trained, and improved.
 
All in all, its a myth. Punching power is a skill just like math. While some are better, it can be learned, trained, and improved.

It's not a total myth, it's a combination of factors.

You can study and get better at it but most people could study their entire lives and never be as smart as Stephen Hawking. You can practice boxing your entire life and never hit like George Foreman.

Some people are naturally better at certain things, and if they continue to work to improve at those, that is when you get something really exceptional.
 
It's not a myth, there's such a thing called aptitude, the capacity to learn a skill AND perform it efficiently.

Math can be learned, but not everyone is going to be a quantum physicist.
 
Back
Top