Re: Great fighters who had a little bit of everything.
Basically a jack of all trades but a master of none.
Re: Great fighters who had a little bit of everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by X
???
ALL great fighters have a bit of everything, that is why they are great fighters.
It's very rare that a someone would be recognised as a great fighter who lacks any major boxing attribute ..... those that do seem to compensate by having an absolute surfeit of something (Rocky Marciano, Tommy Hearns come to mind, but I'm sure there are others)
Completely agree on this
X...
No disrespect to Taeth, but as I read the title of the thread I said WTF?
Don't all great fighters have a little bit of everything, that's why they are great....
Sure enough I scroll down and read your post....
I am talking about the versatile guys
You never really saw Frazier change it up or Ali become a power puncher who weaved in with both hands high. Almost all the champions were one dimensional
Sugar Ray boxed
Leonard could do both
Hearns had to keep an opponent on the outside or overwhelm them, but he was mainly a boxer.
There are some guys who were good at everything, and they didn't have all the talent in the world, and thats who I am looking for.
Not sure if this is several grades below the level of "great" you're after, but a favourite of mine from the late 80s was Marlon Starling. Not to be mentioned in the same breath as Robinson, Duran, Leonard et al, but to me he seemed to have a bit of everything. He had the misfortune to box when Curry was in his prime, but I was certain that he'd destroy Honeygan a few years on (and I'm a Brit).
Re: Great fighters who had a little bit of everything.
Yeah, Starling is a good one, so are Buddy McGirt, Robbie Sims, Jerry Quarry, Cleveland Williams, Vitali Klitschko, Dwight Qawi?
