Who comes close to being a "perfect fighter?"

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

....I think he gave away too many rounds, if you GIVE AWAY 2-3 rounds then you give your opponent too much of an opportunity to win and the judges too much of an opportunity to screw you which is why if Hopkins could either punch harder or had a motor like Marvin Hagler or had the hand speed of a Roy Jones Jr...all things that would keep him from giving rounds away, then he would be "perfect"

[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?

[ICB]

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?

As much as i love Salvador Sanchez, i don't think he sustained perfection. He had struggles against Patrick Ford, Pat Cowdell, and he was arguably losing to a novice Azumah Nelson, who fought a very good fight. But obviously wasn't in his peak, but neither was Salvador Sanchez IMO.

Salvador Sanchez is great but he hadn't reached his peak yet, so he obviously was not the perfect fighter yet. Ricardo Lopez i agree on he had it all. Eder Jofre haven't seen alot of so i can't comment.