Who was the most complete fighter ever?
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Yup, there were many reasons people didn't advance against Pea and one of them was he surprised everybody with his pop. Wicked body puncher. It drives me crazy when people talk about him like a strictly defensive fighter. He threw a ton of punches.
I despise Leonard, but there was nothing he couldn't do in there. He definitely got his ass kicked in Montreal. But he was facing a monster.
I despise Leonard, but there was nothing he couldn't do in there. He definitely got his ass kicked in Montreal. But he was facing a monster.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Pound-for-pound, Whitaker was better than Leonard.
IMO, Duran comes off second-best against Whitaker at Lightweight, where both were in their pomp.
IMO, Duran comes off second-best against Whitaker at Lightweight, where both were in their pomp.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
several fighters got flat-out raped to the body by pea. Haugen's attempts at a contemptuous facial expression got more and more pained and embarassing as that fight went on, and he was one tough fvcker. Buddy McGirt musta been shocked to get out-banged on the inside.
KC we ain't gonna find agreement here, from my memory a lot of those flurries vs Duran i saw as being much less than full-torque (nice phrase), and often verging on slaps. haven't seen it in a while, i just strongly recall SRL's arms travelling waaaaay too far and wide/underneath to be fully-torqued.
KC we ain't gonna find agreement here, from my memory a lot of those flurries vs Duran i saw as being much less than full-torque (nice phrase), and often verging on slaps. haven't seen it in a while, i just strongly recall SRL's arms travelling waaaaay too far and wide/underneath to be fully-torqued.
-
King Carlos
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1123
- Joined: 11 May 2010, 19:10
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Against Duran I agree, but mainly because of Duran's defensive prowess. He was just firing on all cylinders that night. No matter who you are, it's difficult to look good against a phenom like that.Counter-puncher wrote:several fighters got flat-out raped to the body by pea. Haugen's attempts at a contemptuous facial expression got more and more pained and embarassing as that fight went on, and he was one tough fvcker. Buddy McGirt musta been shocked to get out-banged on the inside.
KC we ain't gonna find agreement here, from my memory a lot of those flurries vs Duran i saw as being much less than full-torque (nice phrase), and often verging on slaps. haven't seen it in a while, i just strongly recall SRL's arms travelling waaaaay too far and wide/underneath to be fully-torqued.
-
Martin Sosa Cameron
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1012
- Joined: 31 Aug 2005, 19:44
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Henry Armstrong
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Baeney Ross and Jimmy McClarnin did very well
-
Arbachakov
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 380
- Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 12:35
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Leonard was a far superior bodypuncher to Whitaker.He ripped left hooks in there as good as anyone when he wanted to focus on it.
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
I respect Henry Armstrong as one of the best fighters of all time but I wouldn't say he was the most complete.Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:Henry Armstrong
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
No mention of Joe Louis? He should be up there in terms of completeness, had it all imo.
Another guy who had all the physical tools was Meldrick Taylor but it didn't quite pan out.
Another guy who had all the physical tools was Meldrick Taylor but it didn't quite pan out.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
"By far," is quite a stretch. Whitaker was a first-class bodypuncher by any measure.Arbachakov wrote:Leonard was a far superior bodypuncher to Whitaker.He ripped left hooks in there as good as anyone when he wanted to focus on it.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Taylor belonged on the world-stage, but he is absolutely more myth than reality nowadays.hhaehre wrote:No mention of Joe Louis? He should be up there in terms of completeness, had it all imo.
Another guy who had all the physical tools was Meldrick Taylor but it didn't quite pan out.
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
I don't think his resume is shallow by any means, most of the guys he beat he di by KO, and many of them were either world champs or recently removed titleists and challengers, or otherwise guys who would later go on to give the future class of 105 and 108 absolute hell. Saman Sorjaturong for instance. Lopez crushed him without probblem and then a couple of years later he'd go on to KO Chiquita Gonzalez. Gushiken, Yuh, and Chang wouldn't have been able to hang with him, he was too good in every aspect, and the only guy who made things close, was a heavier and stronger Rosendo Alvarez, who on top of being well skilled and a KO-puncher entered the ring at least 10 lbs. heavier than Finito.SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1123
- Joined: 11 May 2010, 19:10
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
You believe Alvarez to have been superior to Chang, Gushiken, and Yuh? Given the problems he had with Alvarez, past his prime though he may've been, I'd bet top dollar on Chang. Not only was he physically strong, but he was a swarmer extraordinaire the likes of which I've rarely ever seen. The perfect foil to Lopez's stand-up, rigid approach in my opinion.Diamond WEAPON wrote:I don't think his resume is shallow by any means, most of the guys he beat he di by KO, and many of them were either world champs or recently removed titleists and challengers, or otherwise guys who would later go on to give the future class of 105 and 108 absolute hell. Saman Sorjaturong for instance. Lopez crushed him without probblem and then a couple of years later he'd go on to KO Chiquita Gonzalez. Gushiken, Yuh, and Chang wouldn't have been able to hang with him, he was too good in every aspect, and the only guy who made things close, was a heavier and stronger Rosendo Alvarez, who on top of being well skilled and a KO-puncher entered the ring at least 10 lbs. heavier than Finito.SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Diamond WEAPON wrote:I don't think his resume is shallow by any means, most of the guys he beat he di by KO, and many of them were either world champs or recently removed titleists and challengers, or otherwise guys who would later go on to give the future class of 105 and 108 absolute hell. Saman Sorjaturong for instance. Lopez crushed him without probblem and then a couple of years later he'd go on to KO Chiquita Gonzalez. Gushiken, Yuh, and Chang wouldn't have been able to hang with him, he was too good in every aspect, and the only guy who made things close, was a heavier and stronger Rosendo Alvarez, who on top of being well skilled and a KO-puncher entered the ring at least 10 lbs. heavier than Finito.SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.
Stuff like this is exactly what makes him so overrated. That's a completely preposterous statement.
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Did I ever say he just blows them away? I simply think he would've beaten them clearly. Who the hell did they beat? Those guys couldn't even separate themselves from what Carbajal and Gonzalez did, and Lopez is clearly better than both of them. Look at any of their common opponents and you'll see that Lopez beat them all more impressively. Then add to the fact that none of these guys even made it to age 30 and struggled with guys that lopez would've toyed with.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Diamond WEAPON wrote:Did I ever say he just blows them away? I simply think he would've beaten them clearly. Who the hell did they beat? Those guys couldn't even separate themselves from what Carbajal and Gonzalez did, and Lopez is clearly better than both of them. Look at any of their common opponents and you'll see that Lopez beat them all more impressively. Then add to the fact that none of these guys even made it to age 30 and struggled with guys that lopez would've toyed with.
You said they wouldn't be able to hang with him and he was better than them at everything. That would indicate a mismatch.
Carbajal & Gonzalez beat each other and Lopez never separated himself from them either.He certainly could have moved up and settled it with carbajal, but he didn't. Chang beat Zapata. Yuh & Gushiken have similar resumes to Lopez, but nobody drools over their every move.
Finito was very talented, but he NEVER beat anybody that good. It's easy to speculate on what would happen. Of course Lopez would have toyed with everyone, he was a superhuman fighting machine
What does when they retired have to do with anything? They never fought past 30, Lopez never fought 15 rounds. Big deal, prime vs prime they are all closely matched and comparable.
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
The age thing had to do with skill level, Lopez certainly wasn't getting any better physically as he got older like most fighters of that size, but his ability saw him through and longevity to me speaks volumes about a fighter's quality. The guy had a title reign over a time period and against a level of opposition at least as consistently good as theirs and he beat said opposition with more clarity and lasted longer than they did. Him fighting 15 rounds is a null argument, as virtually everyone he fought on the championship level got stopped in half of that time, and those he didn't stop he outclassed late.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Fighting 15 rounds wasn't an argument, just an example of how inane mentioning them not fighting into their 30's was. That's why it was followed with a big deal. Attributing that to skill level is even more ridiculous.
He didn't beat his opposition with more clarity and he didn't reign any more dominantly. You're just making things up at this point. But thanks for giving a sterling example of how overrated he is.
He didn't beat his opposition with more clarity and he didn't reign any more dominantly. You're just making things up at this point. But thanks for giving a sterling example of how overrated he is.
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Well I see there's no convincing you otherwise, but I'm done. Fact is he was a very complete fighter, and I could very easily show how a number of fighters ranked ahead of him by many shouldn't be.
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Well, some of you may laugh at this, but I think Gene Tunney is worth mentioning. In this tribute, they say SSR and Ali adapted their styles based on the guy that revolutionized the sport bringing it in boxing. Agree or disagree, I believe he was 66-1 with 48 KO's, and avenged his only loss to Harry Greb 2 or 3 times. I think Ali got more fighting style from Jack Johnson and SRR.
He was a very smart fighter, and possessed good enough defense and boxing skills I think to be mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-9gW3lJmVM&feature=fvsr
He was a very smart fighter, and possessed good enough defense and boxing skills I think to be mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-9gW3lJmVM&feature=fvsr
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Diamond WEAPON wrote:Well I see there's no convincing you otherwise, but I'm done. Fact is he was a very complete fighter, and I could very easily show how a number of fighters ranked ahead of him by many shouldn't be.
You haven't made a legitimate point. I would stop too.
Edit: For the record, I never said he wasn't a complete fighter. He was.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Best Light-Heavyweight who ever drew breath, in this observer's opinion 8)Badhusker wrote:Well, some of you may laugh at this, but I think Gene Tunney is worth mentioning. In this tribute, they say SSR and Ali adapted their styles based on the guy that revolutionized the sport bringing it in boxing. Agree or disagree, I believe he was 66-1 with 48 KO's, and avenged his only loss to Harry Greb 2 or 3 times. I think Ali got more fighting style from Jack Johnson and SRR.
He was a very smart fighter, and possessed good enough defense and boxing skills I think to be mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-9gW3lJmVM&feature=fvsr
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
How about you ask somebody who isn't yourself whether my points are legitimate.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Diamond WEAPON wrote:Well I see there's no convincing you otherwise, but I'm done. Fact is he was a very complete fighter, and I could very easily show how a number of fighters ranked ahead of him by many shouldn't be.
You haven't made a legitimate point. I would stop too.
Edit: For the record, I never said he wasn't a complete fighter. He was.
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
..damn...i wrote a somewhat lengthy post agreeing that joe louis should be considered here, but somehow it didn't make it out of my computer. so..i'll just say his name again and if we bomber posters get asked why or disagree i'll come back with my reasoning.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Who was the most complete fighter ever?
Diamond WEAPON wrote:How about you ask somebody who isn't yourself whether my points are legitimate.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Diamond WEAPON wrote:Well I see there's no convincing you otherwise, but I'm done. Fact is he was a very complete fighter, and I could very easily show how a number of fighters ranked ahead of him by many shouldn't be.
You haven't made a legitimate point. I would stop too.
Edit: For the record, I never said he wasn't a complete fighter. He was.
I thought you were done? Forgive me for responding to you when you quote me. I assumed your points were directed at me.
Your posts are in an open forum. If somebody thinks it's legitimate that a fighter who fights into his 30's is more skilled than one who retires at 28. They will tell you.