Who was the most complete fighter ever?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You've either not seen much of a young Gomez (he started to deteriorate technically post-Zarate in my opinion, when he went the way of so many others who fall in love with their power) or haven't properly analyzed his bouts. He was one of the most silky-smooth defensive attackers I've ever seen, on par with Duran, except that he had far superior lateral movement (not to say he was more effective, as lateral movement simply wasn't a part of Duran's method). A complete technician. Never have I seen a fighter more beautiful to watch.

Give him a watch in some of this footage. This is the Gomez I'm talking about, not the bomber he became later in his career:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3kWnH-3IFg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCvtOZRnO0M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuoP5L2YnKY

I grew up watching Gomez, he is one of my favorite fighters. I've seen every bit as much as you have and have no issue analyzing his bouts. He wasn't a great defensder, no if's ands or buts about it. That's not to say he led with his face, but nobody had trouble finding him. they had trouble beating him.

Give a watch to Carlos mendoza and Derrick Holmes. They both touched him up plenty.

I've seen them. As I mentioned, I believe very strongly upon viewing pretty much all available footage of him that he began to deteriorate as a technician prior to facing Sanchez. Post-Zarate, really. Those fights took place during that sort of transitional period for him. From about the Davila fight at age 19 to the Zarate fight at age 22 Gomez was as complete a technician as I've ever seen.

Of course you're going to get hit more than a purely defensive specialist if you're primarily an offensive fighter, that goes without saying. That doesn't mean an offensive fighter can't have great defense. Gomez was, along with Duran, one of the best at alternating between offensive and defensive positions seamlessly. A naturally smooth and aggressive counter-puncher who was wonderfully well-schooled in his art. His footwork, head and upper-body movement in general were all fanastic, and he used them very well when on the attack, utilizing the angles and momentum he gained from his shifts in movement to generate power and openings for his punches.

If you grew up on him, has it perhaps been a while since you've seen him fight? I suggest going back and analyzing some of his early bouts. The ones I posted being among his finest performances, in my opinion.

I have many of his fights in my library and no it hasn't been a long time since I've watched him fight. Perhaps you should just accept that we disagree on it and we always will? It isn't always about somebody not knowing what they are talking about. You're coming off as a massive fan that sees no holes. I'm a big fan who thinks Bazooka is overrated in some departments. Not a huge puncher and certainly not a "silky smooth" defender.

Gomez wasn't in Duran's league as a defender. Obviously being an attacking fighter doesn't mean you can't have great defense. I never said Wilfredo was Jerry quarry. But he wasn't better than Robinson, which is what I initially took issue with anyway.

[King Carlos]

I'm twenty-six, & I believe he's the greatest pure talent I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I think he can be quite overrated, personally. He didn't prove nearly enough to merit the kind of praise he often receives. The opposition he was generally facing was ghastly, a few decent fighters aside. Obviously an excellent fighter, though. I think Jung-Koo Chang was a superior talent from the lower weights, personally.

This I completely agree with. Chang, Gushiken & Yuh were all better imo.

He and Gushiken were on the same wavelength, in my opinion. I think all were better than Yuh, who was a fine fighter in his own right. Lopez's footwork and ability to quickly open and close the distance would likely see him get the better of Yuh from range. Yuh didn't have much in the way of footwork, although he was very well schooled technically from mid to close range.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's easy to say, he wasn't a puncher but he was physically strong and he threw a ton of punches. I think he outworks Lopez in a tight one. But head to head isn't what makes him overrated, he was obviously very talented. It's his shallow resume and the way people overlook it.

[King Carlos]

I grew up watching Gomez, he is one of my favorite fighters. I've seen every bit as much as you have and have no issue analyzing his bouts. He wasn't a great defensder, no if's ands or buts about it. That's not to say he led with his face, but nobody had trouble finding him. they had trouble beating him.

Give a watch to Carlos mendoza and Derrick Holmes. They both touched him up plenty.

I've seen them. As I mentioned, I believe very strongly upon viewing pretty much all available footage of him that he began to deteriorate as a technician prior to facing Sanchez. Post-Zarate, really. Those fights took place during that sort of transitional period for him. From about the Davila fight at age 19 to the Zarate fight at age 22 Gomez was as complete a technician as I've ever seen.

Of course you're going to get hit more than a purely defensive specialist if you're primarily an offensive fighter, that goes without saying. That doesn't mean an offensive fighter can't have great defense. Gomez was, along with Duran, one of the best at alternating between offensive and defensive positions seamlessly. A naturally smooth and aggressive counter-puncher who was wonderfully well-schooled in his art. His footwork, head and upper-body movement in general were all fanastic, and he used them very well when on the attack, utilizing the angles and momentum he gained from his shifts in movement to generate power and openings for his punches.

If you grew up on him, has it perhaps been a while since you've seen him fight? I suggest going back and analyzing some of his early bouts. The ones I posted being among his finest performances, in my opinion.

I have many of his fights in my library and no it hasn't been a long time since I've watched him fight. Perhaps you should just accept that we disagree on it and we always will? It isn't always about somebody not knowing what they are talking about. You're coming off as a massive fan that sees no holes. I'm a big fan who thinks Bazooka is overrated in some departments. Not a huge puncher and certainly not a "silky smooth" defender.

Gomez wasn't in Duran's league as a defender. Obviously being an attacking fighter doesn't mean you can't have great defense. I never said Wilfredo was Jerry quarry. But he wasn't better than Robinson, which is what I initially took issue with anyway.

I don't think he was better than Robinson, either. I simply believe that he appeared a more complete fighter, all things considered, from the film I've watched. That doesn't mean he was more effective. Perhaps Gomez would've looked lesser against the quality of opponent Robinson was routinely facing, in fact I'm sure he would. I'm just basing my opinion off the film I've viewed and analyzed. Gomez fits the description as well as anyone.

But I'll agree to disagree, as you've suggested. Opinions are like assholes, after all. On a side note, I agree with you that Gomez wasn't the puncher he's so often perceived as. He was more of an accumulation puncher, barring the rare oddity like the Kobayashi bout.

[King Carlos]

That's easy to say, he wasn't a puncher but he was physically strong and he threw a ton of punches. I think he outworks Lopez in a tight one. But head to head isn't what makes him overrated, he was obviously very talented. It's his shallow resume and the way people overlook it.

Yeah, but Yuh's resume wasn't any better if you wanna get down to it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I've seen them. As I mentioned, I believe very strongly upon viewing pretty much all available footage of him that he began to deteriorate as a technician prior to facing Sanchez. Post-Zarate, really. Those fights took place during that sort of transitional period for him. From about the Davila fight at age 19 to the Zarate fight at age 22 Gomez was as complete a technician as I've ever seen.

Of course you're going to get hit more than a purely defensive specialist if you're primarily an offensive fighter, that goes without saying. That doesn't mean an offensive fighter can't have great defense. Gomez was, along with Duran, one of the best at alternating between offensive and defensive positions seamlessly. A naturally smooth and aggressive counter-puncher who was wonderfully well-schooled in his art. His footwork, head and upper-body movement in general were all fanastic, and he used them very well when on the attack, utilizing the angles and momentum he gained from his shifts in movement to generate power and openings for his punches.

If you grew up on him, has it perhaps been a while since you've seen him fight? I suggest going back and analyzing some of his early bouts. The ones I posted being among his finest performances, in my opinion.

I have many of his fights in my library and no it hasn't been a long time since I've watched him fight. Perhaps you should just accept that we disagree on it and we always will? It isn't always about somebody not knowing what they are talking about. You're coming off as a massive fan that sees no holes. I'm a big fan who thinks Bazooka is overrated in some departments. Not a huge puncher and certainly not a "silky smooth" defender.

Gomez wasn't in Duran's league as a defender. Obviously being an attacking fighter doesn't mean you can't have great defense. I never said Wilfredo was Jerry quarry. But he wasn't better than Robinson, which is what I initially took issue with anyway.

I don't think he was better than Robinson, either. I simply believe that he appeared a more complete fighter, all things considered, from the film I've watched. That doesn't mean he was more effective. Perhaps Gomez would've looked lesser against the quality of opponent Robinson was routinely facing, in fact I'm sure he would. I'm just basing my opinion off the film I've viewed and analyzed. Gomez fits the description as well as anyone.

But I'll agree to disagree, as you've suggested. Opinions are like assholes, after all. On a side note, I agree with you that Gomez wasn't the puncher he's so often perceived as. He was more of an accumulation puncher, barring the rare oddity like the Kobayashi bout.

I wasn't implying you thought he was greater than Robinson. I was speaking strictly from a defensive stand point. I agree gomez was a complete fighter, just mentioning him and then questioning SRR doesn't add up.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's easy to say, he wasn't a puncher but he was physically strong and he threw a ton of punches. I think he outworks Lopez in a tight one. But head to head isn't what makes him overrated, he was obviously very talented. It's his shallow resume and the way people overlook it.

Yeah, but Yuh's resume wasn't any better if you wanna get down to it.

Fair point, then again nobody is mentioning Yuh as one of the most talented fighters in history and he still is omitted from the HOF. I don't have an issue with someone rating Lopez above Yuh, Gushiken or Chang. But I do when I see people rating him above someone like Hearns. That's where I'm coming from when I call someone overrated. I find Chavez to be one of the more overrated fighters in history, but there is no doubt he was great.

[Pachachis]

That's easy to say, he wasn't a puncher but he was physically strong and he threw a ton of punches. I think he outworks Lopez in a tight one. But head to head isn't what makes him overrated, he was obviously very talented. It's his shallow resume and the way people overlook it.

Yeah, but Yuh's resume wasn't any better if you wanna get down to it.

Fair point, then again nobody is mentioning Yuh as one of the most talented fighters in history and he still is omitted from the HOF. I don't have an issue with someone rating Lopez above Yuh, Gushiken or Chang. But I do when I see people rating him above someone like Hearns. That's where I'm coming from when I call someone overrated. I find Chavez to be one of the more overrated fighters in history, but there is no doubt he was great.

Before saying anything about Chavez, we should check on this overall record and then attempt to say something against it. There is no other fighter that gets near his overwhelming percentage and last but not least, charisma.

[Robinson]

George St Pierre comes to mind as far as complete skill sets go
for the most complete fighter.

As for boxers....:)

I think Ray Robinson and Harold Johnson are two guys that
were very talented and had a good mix of offensive, defence,
athleticism, talent, balance and timing. Not to mention actual
skills and ability to think and remain composed.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yeah, but Yuh's resume wasn't any better if you wanna get down to it.

Fair point, then again nobody is mentioning Yuh as one of the most talented fighters in history and he still is omitted from the HOF. I don't have an issue with someone rating Lopez above Yuh, Gushiken or Chang. But I do when I see people rating him above someone like Hearns. That's where I'm coming from when I call someone overrated. I find Chavez to be one of the more overrated fighters in history, but there is no doubt he was great.

Before saying anything about Chavez, we should check on this overall record and then attempt to say something against it. There is no other fighter that gets near his overwhelming percentage and last but not least, charisma.

I wont elaborate as most on here know where I stand. But he never beat a great fighter just to name one point. I see Chavez mentioned in the top 20 and he doesn't have a win over anyone who could be considered for the top 100, that wont cut it for me.

Charisma isn't a measure of greatness, it's a measure of popularity.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Back to the thread, Charley Burley is an obvious answer. I'd throw in Michael Spinks too.

[Robinson]

Good pick on Burley.

[jaclem2]

...robinsoni scores high in every category...except infighting. of course one could say with his build and reach and so many other qualities he didn't need it. I think ezzard outranks him here....a great infighter and good in the other departments, even great in many.

i dunno..hard to choose between these two, based on the criteria given.

[Goodnight, Irene]

...robinsoni scores high in every category...except infighting. of course one could say with his build and reach and so many other qualities he didn't need it. I think ezzard outranks him here....a great infighter and good in the other departments, even great in many.

i dunno..hard to choose between these two, based on the criteria given.

Yes, Charles was one of the first to come to mind here.

[Controversial]

Although Im not a huge fan but Sugar Ray Leonard must be up there don't you think?

[Counter-puncher]

without disrespect to Leonard, i always saw him as a slightly poor man's Robinson, and the same criticism can definitely be applied to him on his infighting (or lack thereof).

plus as with SRR he relied more on athletic gifts than wellroundedness in the technical sense

i'd call Charles, Burley better/more complete fighters, I'd also say Kid Gavilan was worth a shout as his infighting for one thing was way better than SRL's. is Kid Gavilan worth a top 5/10 slot here?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Kid had no power.

[Counter-puncher]

fair enough, i was thinking about complete as in wellrounded technically but if you mean physical gifts that's his obvious lack.

[King Carlos]

without disrespect to Leonard, i always saw him as a slightly poor man's Robinson, and the same criticism can definitely be applied to him on his infighting (or lack thereof).

plus as with SRR he relied more on athletic gifts than wellroundedness in the technical sense

I disagree whole-heartedly. Leonard's technical prowess was more than proved in his box-off with Wilfred Benitez, which I didn't consider nearly as close as most. I gave Benitez 3-4 rounds tops.

[Counter-puncher]

you think leonard had more technical skills than he had athletic gifts? thats what i'm implying, or trying to.

[Counter-puncher]

and he couldn't infight for 5h1t

[King Carlos]

I think Leonard had a fine balance of technical skills and athletic gifts. The athleticism was more reknowned, sure, but mainly because he decided to make it more apparent with his show-boating gestures. I think he showed fantastic technical skills, though, particularly when he cut out the BS. Same as Whitaker (who I actually considered better on a technical level than in relation to his athleticism).

As for in-fighting, he wasn't one of the greatest, but to say he was no good is very harsh, in my opinion. He hung on the inside with a rampaging Duran, after all, despite being outclassed in many ways. I think he showed more than adequate in-fighting skills in the majority of his fights, albeit typically against lesser opposition. Often times he'd slow the pace simply to allow the opponent to bring the fight, seemingly for no other purpose than to test his skills inside, a la Roy Jones in later days. Obviously he preferred to dictate the pace with a bit of range between he and his opponent, but he could get down to the nitty gritty if need be, or he simply felt the urge.

[palooka]

Holman Williams could do everything exept knock a man out with 1 blow; Burley was supposed to be very special, Jung ku Chang dominated; At his peak and if he were fit; I think James Toney could do just about everything in the book. (Losses are a part of learning).

[Counter-puncher]

I think Leonard had a fine balance of technical skills and athletic gifts. The athleticism was more reknowned, sure, but mainly because he decided to make it more apparent with his show-boating gestures. I think he showed fantastic technical skills, though, particularly when he cut out the BS. Same as Whitaker (who I actually considered better on a technical level than in relation to his athleticism).

As for in-fighting, he wasn't one of the greatest, but to say he was no good is very harsh, in my opinion. He hung on the inside with a rampaging Duran, after all, despite being outclassed in many ways. I think he showed more than adequate in-fighting skills in the majority of his fights, albeit typically against lesser opposition. Often times he'd slow the pace simply to allow the opponent to bring the fight, seemingly for no other purpose than to test his skills inside, a la Roy Jones in later days. Obviously he preferred to dictate the pace with a bit of range between he and his opponent, but he could get down to the nitty gritty if need be, or he simply felt the urge.

we definitely differ slightly on SRL. he got hung on the inside with duran, throwing some of the ugliest widest armpunches i've ever seen any supposed technical god throw.

^ i am being slightly facetious here but Pea was a better infighter IMO

my tiebreaker on athleticism vs technical skills would be something like, imagine if fighter X had only 75% of his speed etc, how well would he do?

in that test IMO Whitaker comes off better than Leonard.

[King Carlos]

I think Leonard had a fine balance of technical skills and athletic gifts. The athleticism was more reknowned, sure, but mainly because he decided to make it more apparent with his show-boating gestures. I think he showed fantastic technical skills, though, particularly when he cut out the BS. Same as Whitaker (who I actually considered better on a technical level than in relation to his athleticism).

As for in-fighting, he wasn't one of the greatest, but to say he was no good is very harsh, in my opinion. He hung on the inside with a rampaging Duran, after all, despite being outclassed in many ways. I think he showed more than adequate in-fighting skills in the majority of his fights, albeit typically against lesser opposition. Often times he'd slow the pace simply to allow the opponent to bring the fight, seemingly for no other purpose than to test his skills inside, a la Roy Jones in later days. Obviously he preferred to dictate the pace with a bit of range between he and his opponent, but he could get down to the nitty gritty if need be, or he simply felt the urge.

we definitely differ slightly on SRL. he got hung on the inside with duran, throwing some of the ugliest widest armpunches i've ever seen any supposed technical god throw.

^ i am being slightly facetious here but Pea was a better infighter IMO

my tiebreaker on athleticism vs technical skills would be something like, imagine if fighter X had only 75% of his speed etc, how well would he do?

in that test IMO Whitaker comes off better than Leonard.

Leonard rarely threw ugly punches, even in the Duran fight. He'd throw flurries often, but even more often with conviction. He could throw lightning combos with full torque behind them as well as anyone this side of Robinson. He did so better given a bit of range, though, I will say.

I'll tell you what, though, not being facetious in the slightest, Whitaker was the better in-fighter in my view as well. When he got down to the no-nonsense stuff, Whitaker was as well-rounded technically as any fighter, in my opinion. Another overlooked factor is his pop. When he decided to sit down on his punches they could hurt.