Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
I don't think there's such a thing. Simply because styles make fights. Unconventional fighters with great athletic talents, like Roy Jones (in his prime) would take a very solid and superior boxer and make them look stupid.
In terms of a perfect boxer/technical fighter. Floyd has a style that makes him very hard to beat. If he can't take you out through safely boxing, he'll make sure that his remarkable speed makes you unable to catch him without paying. It'll be interesting it see how he does on March 13 against a smart, tough southpaw with similar speed. Still, I think Manny will be too aggressive to beat Floyd.. and there's no way in hell he'd be able to out-box him. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are ways to beat Floyd, Castillo did expose some weakness in his style (although the rematch proves it was not nearly enough). Sooner or later someone will find the last piece to the puzzle, although I doubt it'll be Manny.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
holmcall
You know, I developed this software game that I call Boxing Trivia 21. You have 5 seconds to answer a question. First one to reach 21 wins ($$$). You might be good at it. :confused: $$$ :confused:
I'm impressed.
Hehe i had to laugh..
My boss is also a quiz master. He loves a bit of trivia and is always coming up with random quizzes... He knows i love boxing so one day he asks me: ''what boxer was born as Walker...''
Poor sod didn't get a chance to finish the ''big'' question. He was so upset ;D
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Meldrick Taylor - fastest hands in the game !
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
for me it's got to be sugar ray leonard followed by a lightweight sugar shane mosley. i never saw sugar ray robinson fight but i'm guessing he was something of a complete fighter too!
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Hopkins deserves a mention imo.
Hopkins in his prime could fight on the backfoot or coming forward, on the inside and on the ropes. Hopkins was effective at any punching range.
He had a solid jab when he used it, quick sneaky right hand, he could punch to the body and was good at putting punches together. His footwork and defense is some of the best i have seen ever.
Hopkins also had good power which was an underated part of his game, his handspeed was always underated also, his stamina was top notch and he could take a good punch when he had to.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Mayorga is up there too! Charisma, blinding speed, inpenetrable defense, along with ring generalship, comes almost as close to perfect as it gets IMO.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
IMO Sugar Ray Robinson does it for me. He has knocked out fighters walking backwards and fought every fighter in his era including being undefeated in the amateurs and only got knocked out once and that was from heat exhaustion in 200 fights. He is the fighter Ali tried to emulate. A prime Archie Moore was impressive also.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jon09
Joe Louis and Ray Robinson old school
Bernard Hopkins is pretty damn close to perfection he just lacks power.
A prime Roy Jones was a thing of beauty.
Good old school picks. Gypse Joe Harris was very good.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Sugar Ray Robinson & Sugar Ray Leonard both appeared to have it all. I think people underestimate Ali's power, so I'd have him there as well.
Both the two already mentioned also fit the bill as well. Hagler didn't really have any weaknesses, but I wouldn't see he was on the same level as the others. Mayweather at the lower weights seemed to have it all. If the little footage I've seen is something to go by, then add Charley Burley to that list.
Don't agree with Ali. His power was weak compare to other top Heavyweights
Ali also couldnt fight on the inside which rules him out also.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
You guys have covered most of them Alexi A, R Lopez recently etc.
A few Ive only read about that may fit the bill;
Tough times for some divisions!
Some would say Willie pep but really although an amazing technician Saddler a fighter with a large reach had his measure more than once,so to call Pep in as a perfect fighter its like trying to call Barrera or Moralles into line above the other,you cant do it ,well I cant.
Vincente Salvidar from Mexico took the featherweight crown in 64 off of Ramos ,Sugar Ramos from Cuba who had held the title after stopping and unfortunatley ending the life of Davey Moore.
Anyway Salvidar defended it eight times retired unbeaten.Then he comes back in 1970 abd fights a cuban champion and also Johhny Famechon who had the title twice from the fighting HArada. And wins it again then retires!
(Who was that masked man) ???
Gene Tunney well you know that story,there are some detractors / via the human windmill Harry Creb.Creb Took Gene to the cleaners and outsmarted and out fought him. But to Genes credit he went away and worked out how to beat Harry which he did on four other occasions!
HArry Creb could easily fall into place here too, it was proven beyond doubt that he fought with only one eye for many many years against his opposition in thoise times that has to be perfect fighting.
Len Harvey, he was a small fly weight as a boy and has the distinction of fighting through all the weights!
He eventally fought for the British heavyweight title and gave away 13 kg or 29lb! to JAck Peterson who lost his first fight and the title to Len on that day
.Len soon went on and took the British Empire HEavyweight title form Canadian Larry Gains.
Then he lost both titles back to Peterson who won in 12 over a cut eye stoppage.
Then Len took the british version of the world light heavy title off Jock Mc avoy.
Len Harvey started pro in 1920, this bloke fought his way 'mostly successfully' through all the weights.His last fight was a come back after 3 years out of the rig and he was stopped for the first time in 133 fights some of the earlier fights 20 rounders!
Marcciano 49/0/0
Stopped 43 of them inside the distance at 5'10" and 13st 2Lbs !
you cant ignore that, for the tough times and era too, he must have been something special.
JAck Britton fought over 22 years from 1915 and fought 299 fights he have to be a great fighter to last that long in those times.Records say he was a fantastic counter boxer and classic boxer.
Rounds were longer and harder back then.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
southpawed
pernell whitaker.
the tools he possessed and the way he used them. amazes me everytime i watch his fights.
Yup he also had underrated toughness, the only thing he probably didn't have was power. But that was also underrated aswell, who could forget his brutal KO of Diosbelys Hurtado, damn that still gives me a chill down my spine thinking about it.
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Hopkins deserves a mention imo.
Hopkins in his prime could fight on the backfoot or coming forward, on the inside and on the ropes. Hopkins was effective at any punching range.
He had a solid jab when he used it, quick sneaky right hand, he could punch to the body and was good at putting punches together. His footwork and defense is some of the best i have seen ever.
Hopkins also had good power which was an underated part of his game, his handspeed was always underated also, his stamina was top notch and he could take a good punch when he had to.
Yeah to be able to do it all for 20 years and never really be athletically gifted, never really blessed in the speed or power department and stay virtually unscathed is unbelievable!
I think Bernard Hopkins is one of those guys who i rate more as time goes by :rolleyes:
Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Hopkins deserves a mention imo.
Hopkins in his prime could fight on the backfoot or coming forward, on the inside and on the ropes. Hopkins was effective at any punching range.
He had a solid jab when he used it, quick sneaky right hand, he could punch to the body and was good at putting punches together. His footwork and defense is some of the best i have seen ever.
Hopkins also had good power which was an underated part of his game, his handspeed was always underated also, his stamina was top notch and he could take a good punch when he had to.
Yeah to be able to do it all for 20 years and never really be athletically gifted, never really blessed in the speed or power department and stay virtually unscathed is unbelievable!
I think Bernard Hopkins is one of those guys who i rate more as time goes by :rolleyes:
Hopkins is one of my all time favorites. I even placed my bet with him against Pavlik who was supposed to KO him. And boy, I was not wrong!