Re: Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"
There is no such thing as the perfect fighter (as we all know) ..... some people may point to the likes of Marciano who was undefeated, but they would be sacrificing their objective judgement on the cold altar of statistics.
In terms of people who didnt seem to have any obvious weaknesses, fighters like Hagler could do everything (although he did have a tendency towards passivity in the ring) .... Joe Louis was very very good at everything - the complete fighting machine, but he sometimes had poor balance and could be caught early on in fights.
Ali is not a good example of this - he had a freakish style and a character suited to battling real and imaginary enemies, but he held his hands low, sometimes undertrained and was not a one-punch hitter (Cleveland Williams may disagree with me there)
Sonny Liston was a solid guy - good technique, killer power, right temperament. George Foreman was built in the same mold.
In heavyweight terms, Cus D'Amato did describe his vision of the perfect fighter - six foot to six foot two, big shoulders tapering to a slim waist, thin legs but with big thighs. A fighter who was aware of his strenghts and constantly hereded his opponents towards them. He said this in the 1940's and famously was describing Max Bear ....... but you could see how he developed his later fighters on this identikit?
For me though, longevity charisma, speed, intelligence, power and every punch and tick in the book all came together in Ray Robinson. The guy really did have everything and as a welterweight was probably unbeatable.
If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?
Bookmarks