Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"

[Jody Lane]

I agree on the first 3.

However, Jones lacked the urge to finish fights when he could have at times, & I think that means he can't be.

Toney has all the natural physical abilities to be a perfect fighter but his lack of interest in conditioning & so on means he loses out for me.

Holmes is close, although I'm sceptical whether his handspeed was good enough to make him 'perfect'.

Arguello I agree on.

Im actually on about on there best night Jaz, like the James Toney that took apart Iran Barkley. Or the Roy Jones Jr that would destroy fighters, before the Nigel Benn vs Gerald McClellan incident. Or the Larry Holmes that took apart Earnie Shavers in there first fight, i think Larry Holmes is easily in top 10 for the fastest Heavyweights of all time.

Yeah, but you said in the previous post that they could have off-nights. I know you're a fan of all those fighters but the fact is looking at their careers, even their primes, those are all deficiencies they have. I don't think Holmes had great handspeed, he had fantastic punch accuracy which I think made up for it, but I really don't think he had great handspeed.

I hate to disagree with you but Holmes had fantastic handspeed in his youth (before 1985). And his jab sure as hell smacked a bigger wallop than Ali's. Holmes just set down on his punches more than Ali. He might not have tried to throw the same kind of flurries that Ali did, but it was because he seemed more intent on ending fights early. If you remember he was almost 29 when he won the title. Ali was 29 when he began his comeback. Look at the fights that Ali had at 29-32 and the same for Holmes and who was quicker and more devastating.

[X]

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.

[Hoggmeister]

IMO Mike Tyson at 20 years old had it all, speed, power and an iron jaw. He could fight either on the inside or out and had great stamina when going the distance.

[uwey]

Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins and Paul Williams. Dont laugh but those are my definition of all most perfect. That's my odd couple + 1.

[Kev]

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.

Nobody is unbeatable, except for maybe Carl 'The Cobra' Froch.

[SweetPea]

Over the last 24 hours, I've read here that Carl Froch is the perfect fighter and that Amir Khan will be ready to fight Mayweather and Cotto by 2010. I love this place.

[Kev]

Over the last 24 hours, I've read here that Carl Froch is the perfect fighter and that Amir Khan will be ready to fight Mayweather and Cotto by 2010. I love this place.

You excited too eh, it's surely an exciting time to be a British fight fan

[DAWGSWIN]

On his day, Tommy Hearns had everything. When it wasn't he saw arena lights!

My man Hagler looks perfect in the record book, as well as in some of his more famous fights.

Shane Mosely is as close to perfect, on occasion, as I think I've seen recently.

Roy in his prime was impressive.

There is no perfect fighter, only great fighters who have perfect nights!

BTW I am drunkly watching Mosely/Margarito for the umpteenth time! Can't get enough!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I look at Style rather than substance... (lol)
I know that sounds ridiculous to say but in boxing you really only need two things.

1. The right game plan
2. The right temperament to carry out that game plan.

Hence for me... In the most un-text book of ways, a prime Bernard Hopkins was an ultimate fighting machine.

For me, a man who can orchestrate himself in such a way were there's an answer for everything (And stylistically Nard had an answer for everything) is the perfect fighter.

I never used to like Bernard but his older footage is just 100% Gold.

[holmcall]

On his day, Tommy Hearns had everything. When it wasn't he saw arena lights!

My man Hagler looks perfect in the record book, as well as in some of his more famous fights.

Shane Mosely is as close to perfect, on occasion, as I think I've seen recently.

Roy in his prime was impressive.

There is no perfect fighter, only great fighters who have perfect nights!

BTW I am drunkly watching Mosely/Margarito for the umpteenth time! Can't get enough!

But Lopez, Sanchez and Jofre probably sustained "close to perfection" longer than most, don't you think?