I recently got in a debate with a friend; both of us do boxing, although he's been doing it for longer apparently. He seems to think endurance is far more important than technique, whereas I argue that while both are important, technique is a greater deciding factor - for instance, I would expect a boxer with decent technique and high endurance to lose against a boxer with great technique and decent endurance, since the latter would be more efficient at using his energy and would be able to dominate the fight more, eliminating his opponent's physical advantage. I also argued that boxing is very much a mental sport and requires a lot of fast thinking and neural training, which endurance on its own neglects. He doesn't seem to be convinced though.
While he has been boxing longer, my opinions are those of people who are better and more experienced than both of us (for instance, Johnny at expertboxing.com). Are my ideas unfounded? Are we both in the wrong?