The Greatest Offensive Heavyweight of All Time

[Jan]

For me its without a doubt Mike Tyson. He was the ultimativ killer. He wanted to destroy his opponents as fast and as hard as possiblity. He has more spectacular knockouts than any other boxer and he had everything to be a killer: The attitude, the look, the stly and the ability!! Tyson was and ist the killer!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

They would both blow away John L Sullivan quickly.

Quickly is the key word here. That is highly unlikely considering Sullivan at his physical worst went 21 rounds with Jim Corbett, who was a shade faster than Ali. I am not saying Sullivan could beat them, etc. however it wouldn't be an easy task to stop a man like Sullivan.

Holmes and Ali couldn't miss Sullivan blind folded. He's not equipped to face guys like that under modern rules. It might take a few rounds, but he'd surely be stopped. Listing him among the top offensive Heavyweights is laughable. You actually think he had a more prolific offense than Holyfield?

[dempseyfire]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on? The cliched stereotype that Sullivan and the top men in his era were just bar-room brawlers? Sullivan at his best was extremely quick and an excellent feinter. Watching Corbett on film vs Fitz he looks very 'modern' and was clearly a very skilled fighter. If a past-it Sullivan training on booze lasts 20 with Corbett, I highly doubt Ali or Holmes are taking him out early, especially if you give them 4 ounce gloves of the era in which one had to be more cautious about breaking your hands.
Given the difference in eras, I normally like to leave Sullivan off of any lists and start the gloved era with Corbett, but that doesn't mean he couldn't wearing with boxing gloves with guys from other eras.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on? The cliched stereotype that Sullivan and the top men in his era were just bar-room brawlers? Sullivan at his best was extremely quick and an excellent feinter. Watching Corbett on film vs Fitz he looks very 'modern' and was clearly a very skilled fighter. If a past-it Sullivan training on booze lasts 20 with Corbett, I highly doubt Ali or Holmes are taking him out early, especially if you give them 4 ounce gloves of the era in which one had to be more cautious about breaking your hands.
Given the difference in eras, I normally like to leave Sullivan off of any lists and start the gloved era with Corbett, but that doesn't mean he couldn't wearing with boxing gloves with guys from other eras.

It's based on my opinion that Sullivan was more of a fighter than a Boxer. Corbett was an excellent Boxer, he was not a puncher. Ali & Holmes hit significantly harder. Guys like Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson, etc. would have thrashed Corbett in short order.

[The Great John L]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on?

He's basing it on what many of his opinions are based on. The desire to start an endless argument.

[keithmoonhangover]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on?

He's basing it on what many of his opinions are based on. The desire to start an endless argument.

[Boilermaker]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on? The cliched stereotype that Sullivan and the top men in his era were just bar-room brawlers? Sullivan at his best was extremely quick and an excellent feinter. Watching Corbett on film vs Fitz he looks very 'modern' and was clearly a very skilled fighter. If a past-it Sullivan training on booze lasts 20 with Corbett, I highly doubt Ali or Holmes are taking him out early, especially if you give them 4 ounce gloves of the era in which one had to be more cautious about breaking your hands.
Given the difference in eras, I normally like to leave Sullivan off of any lists and start the gloved era with Corbett, but that doesn't mean he couldn't wearing with boxing gloves with guys from other eras.

It's based on my opinion that Sullivan was more of a fighter than a Boxer. Corbett was an excellent Boxer, he was not a puncher. Ali & Holmes hit significantly harder. Guys like Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson, etc. would have thrashed Corbett in short order.

Do you think that Holyfield could go on a 4 rounds or less KO streak, anywhere near that of Sullivan's?

Holy is a great fighter, and may even beat Sullivan, but there is no way he could put together a streak like sullivan did. Even if you allow for poor opposition, it is highly unlikely that Holyfield wont find someone capable of lasting four rounds before too long. As a pure offensive machine, sullivan's record is very, very difficult to beat. I am not even sure that Foreman could replicate it. I probably give Tyson the best shot at doing it, but other than that, i think it very unlikely that anyone else coudl replicate what he did. Maybe Dempsey, but i cant see it.

[Jaywheel]

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on? The cliched stereotype that Sullivan and the top men in his era were just bar-room brawlers? Sullivan at his best was extremely quick and an excellent feinter. Watching Corbett on film vs Fitz he looks very 'modern' and was clearly a very skilled fighter. If a past-it Sullivan training on booze lasts 20 with Corbett, I highly doubt Ali or Holmes are taking him out early, especially if you give them 4 ounce gloves of the era in which one had to be more cautious about breaking your hands.
Given the difference in eras, I normally like to leave Sullivan off of any lists and start the gloved era with Corbett, but that doesn't mean he couldn't wearing with boxing gloves with guys from other eras.

It's based on my opinion that Sullivan was more of a fighter than a Boxer. Corbett was an excellent Boxer, he was not a puncher. Ali & Holmes hit significantly harder. Guys like Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson, etc. would have thrashed Corbett in short order.

Do you think that Holyfield could go on a 4 rounds or less KO streak, anywhere near that of Sullivan's?

Holy is a great fighter, and may even beat Sullivan, but there is no way he could put together a streak like sullivan did. Even if you allow for poor opposition, it is highly unlikely that Holyfield wont find someone capable of lasting four rounds before too long. As a pure offensive machine, sullivan's record is very, very difficult to beat. I am not even sure that Foreman could replicate it. I probably give Tyson the best shot at doing it, but other than that, i think it very unlikely that anyone else coudl replicate what he did. Maybe Dempsey, but i cant see it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Saad, by what you are basing your assumption on?

He's basing it on what many of his opinions are based on. The desire to start an endless argument.

The only one offering snide comments is you.

[Ambling Alp II]

Ali and Holmes don't make this but Max Baer, Johannsson do? Handspeed, accurracy, combinations, not telegraphing your punches, need to factored in.

When I think offensive, I'm also thinking of kayo percentages. Holmes had a killer instict, sure, and he could be particuarly brutal, but he wasn't by no means blowing guys away quickly---- and with Ali, its more of the same, he had the instincts and the skills, but he wasn't blowing anyone away quickly unless it was someone like London, Dunne or Coopman.

That is kind of silly to only conisder this criteria when judging how good someone is offensively.

Besides, Ali had almost as a high of Ko% as Baer and did it against much better overall competition. Who did Baer ever blow away qucikly that was very good?
Jeffries sedlom ko's a good fighter early.
Ali had a about the same ko % as Johannson and better than Fitzsimmons. Holmes had similar Ko numbers.

[Roars Like Me]

Reading through the list I was expecting to see Floyd Patterson in there?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

This is actually a list I wouldn't have had a n issue seeing Wlad's name. Granted, he fights ridiculously cautiously these days but he has a nasty arsenal.

[misterpunch]

nasty arsenal? that sounds very offensive! i dont think floyd, my fave heavyweight, should be listed. in fact mike tyson is probably top but thats because he was totally limited in the defense dept. but marciano, frazier and big george can make equal claims

[HomicideHenry]

They would both blow away John L Sullivan quickly.

Quickly is the key word here. That is highly unlikely considering Sullivan at his physical worst went 21 rounds with Jim Corbett, who was a shade faster than Ali. I am not saying Sullivan could beat them, etc. however it wouldn't be an easy task to stop a man like Sullivan.

Holmes and Ali couldn't miss Sullivan blind folded. He's not equipped to face guys like that under modern rules. It might take a few rounds, but he'd surely be stopped. Listing him among the top offensive Heavyweights is laughable. You actually think he had a more prolific offense than Holyfield?

We are not talking hypothetical H2H match-up's here. As far as being not equipped to fight under 'modern rules', this is a stretch of the imagination considering Sullivan's career, save for a handful of bouts, was all done under Marquis of Queensbury rules. Sullivan used everything from skin tight gloves to 'pillows', and settled on 6oz gloves in a design that we use today as being the preeminent gloves to be used in boxing. He perferred MQ rules because it forced the combatants to 'fight' rather than maul, clinch, grapple, etc. Sullivan learned everything on the job, this is true, but by his peak years he was a master at feinting and counter punching, he wasn't this wild swinging brawler or robot that people invision him as being. Bob Fitzsimmons, who is considered even to this day to be one of the p4p greatest boxers of all time, following the Sullivan loss to Corbett said the following (paraphrased): "All my childhood idols are now gone, and all others who follow in Sullivan's wake will be but mere children's toys in comparison." He wasn't talking that the man was just an icon, he literally meant that the men of Sullivan's era and prior were superior to the men in Fitzsimmons time. Call it blasphemy all you want to, but the man himself said it.

Mind you, to really understand the Great John L. you would have to know him from the beginning until the end; the beginning occured before he turned pro, when he all but kayoed former world's champion Joe Goss out in an exhibition---- HIS FIRST TIME OUT---- the man had tons of natural talent and strength. Ali and Holmes can outbox him, maybe even stop him on cuts, but they are not going to knockout John L. Sullivan with 10oz gloves in a 10 or 12 round fight, or even a 15 round fight. It just isn't happening. Why? Not saying Ali and Holmes didn't take punishment and have cast iron jaws themselves, but their time was what John L's time would have considered sparring.

As for Evander Holyfield, I love him to death, he's the first boxer I ever met in person when I was 7 years old, he was a central part of my household while growing up, but no he wasn't anywhere near as prolific as John L. Sullivan was in terms of offense. Holyfield was the better boxer, sure, but how can Holyfield or anyone else on this list, or anyone off the list not named Langford, can say they were as prolific an offensive heavyweight as Sullivan? 12 years as champion, hundreds kayoed, the top men in Britain, America, etc. all destroyed and most couldn't go four rounds with him. Not even George Foreman was THAT consistent in his performances.

[Ambling Alp II]

Holyfield was a great offensive fighter in his prime and better than many this list. He had very good handspeed, was busy, and was one of the most accurrate punchers ever.
Of course he did not have great ko % and didn't blow away a lot of guys early.

Ali and Holmes fights would have been sparring compared with Sullivan's day? Umm, no. Absolutely ridiculaus to think so.

He was the champion for 10 years, not 12. The last 3 he did not have a title defense. Most of competiton were against men that have little to no boxing experience.
However, he did fight a good opponent from time to time. I agree that he had to be consistent even against weak competition with that many fights over that long of a period of time.
He did have a big right hand and was agressive and that always gives you a puncher's chance. I have no problem with him being considered one of the best offensively, but he was not the best.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Holyfield was a great offensive fighter in his prime and better than many this list. He had very good handspeed, was busy, and was one of the most accurrate punchers ever.
Of course he did not have great ko % and didn't blow away a lot of guys early.

Ali and Holmes fights would have been sparring compared with Sullivan's day? Umm, no. Absolutely ridiculaus to think so.

He was the champion for 10 years, not 12. The last 3 he did not have a title defense. Most of competiton were against men that have little to no boxing experience.
However, he did fight a good opponent from time to time. I agree that he had to be consistent even against weak competition with that many fights over that long of a period of time.
He did have a big right hand and was agressive and that always gives you a puncher's chance. I have no problem with him being considered one of the best offensively, but he was not the best.

Holyfield was greater at every aspect of Boxing than Sullivan. Hilarious that anyone thinks that dude could last four rounds with Evander. It would be swift and ugly, Holyfield in under 3 minutes.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Quickly is the key word here. That is highly unlikely considering Sullivan at his physical worst went 21 rounds with Jim Corbett, who was a shade faster than Ali. I am not saying Sullivan could beat them, etc. however it wouldn't be an easy task to stop a man like Sullivan.

Holmes and Ali couldn't miss Sullivan blind folded. He's not equipped to face guys like that under modern rules. It might take a few rounds, but he'd surely be stopped. Listing him among the top offensive Heavyweights is laughable. You actually think he had a more prolific offense than Holyfield?

We are not talking hypothetical H2H match-up's here. As far as being not equipped to fight under 'modern rules', this is a stretch of the imagination considering Sullivan's career, save for a handful of bouts, was all done under Marquis of Queensbury rules. Sullivan used everything from skin tight gloves to 'pillows', and settled on 6oz gloves in a design that we use today as being the preeminent gloves to be used in boxing. He perferred MQ rules because it forced the combatants to 'fight' rather than maul, clinch, grapple, etc. Sullivan learned everything on the job, this is true, but by his peak years he was a master at feinting and counter punching, he wasn't this wild swinging brawler or robot that people invision him as being. Bob Fitzsimmons, who is considered even to this day to be one of the p4p greatest boxers of all time, following the Sullivan loss to Corbett said the following (paraphrased): "All my childhood idols are now gone, and all others who follow in Sullivan's wake will be but mere children's toys in comparison." He wasn't talking that the man was just an icon, he literally meant that the men of Sullivan's era and prior were superior to the men in Fitzsimmons time. Call it blasphemy all you want to, but the man himself said it.

Mind you, to really understand the Great John L. you would have to know him from the beginning until the end; the beginning occured before he turned pro, when he all but kayoed former world's champion Joe Goss out in an exhibition---- HIS FIRST TIME OUT---- the man had tons of natural talent and strength. Ali and Holmes can outbox him, maybe even stop him on cuts, but they are not going to knockout John L. Sullivan with 10oz gloves in a 10 or 12 round fight, or even a 15 round fight. It just isn't happening. Why? Not saying Ali and Holmes didn't take punishment and have cast iron jaws themselves, but their time was what John L's time would have considered sparring.

As for Evander Holyfield, I love him to death, he's the first boxer I ever met in person when I was 7 years old, he was a central part of my household while growing up, but no he wasn't anywhere near as prolific as John L. Sullivan was in terms of offense. Holyfield was the better boxer, sure, but how can Holyfield or anyone else on this list, or anyone off the list not named Langford, can say they were as prolific an offensive heavyweight as Sullivan? 12 years as champion, hundreds kayoed, the top men in Britain, America, etc. all destroyed and most couldn't go four rounds with him. Not even George Foreman was THAT consistent in his performances.

He would destroy Sullivan like a child. Greater at everything, you may as well send Goldie Hawn out against Holyfield. Brutal massacre, Sullivan would look like a little boy for the four or five minutes he'd be standing.

[HomicideHenry]

Holyfield was a great offensive fighter in his prime and better than many this list. He had very good handspeed, was busy, and was one of the most accurrate punchers ever.
Of course he did not have great ko % and didn't blow away a lot of guys early.

Ali and Holmes fights would have been sparring compared with Sullivan's day? Umm, no. Absolutely ridiculaus to think so.

He was the champion for 10 years, not 12. The last 3 he did not have a title defense. Most of competiton were against men that have little to no boxing experience.
However, he did fight a good opponent from time to time. I agree that he had to be consistent even against weak competition with that many fights over that long of a period of time.
He did have a big right hand and was agressive and that always gives you a puncher's chance. I have no problem with him being considered one of the best offensively, but he was not the best.

He was champion under the LPR rules for 5 years before winning the MQ rules championship, which he held for seven years. That's twelve years as champion. Regardless, he still perferred the gloves over bare knuckles and did more for the game in ever sense of the sport than anyone else in its history.

Most of his opponents did not have boxing experience or very little of it? That's hardly fair assumption, considering its common knowledge most of those men such as Kilrain, Ryan, McCaffrey, Greenfield, Mitchell, etc. had more bouts than what is recorded and known today. If you are meaning his exhibition fights, which have no baring on his professional career though it helped solidy his claim as being the greatest in the world, then that is another story, though alot of them were amateur standouts or bare knuckle champions in their perspective regions as well.

And yes, such fights would have been considered glorified sparring sessions in Sullivan's time. It took Sullivan YEARS before the gloves were ever formally accepted as being the standard in boxing by the general public. The fact that men wearing ANYTHING bigger than skin tight or up to modern sized mma gloves, was considered sparring gloves. The fact that referees in Sullivan's time up until Marciano's time were far less squeamish, also would make modern fights look like sparring sessions. The fact that fights are so much shorter than then, also, make it look like sparring sessions. Throw skin tight or mma sized gloves on Holyfield, with referees who were less squeamish, in fights scheduled for 20 or 40 rounds, I dont see Holyfield being as 'aggressive' as he would have been---- as relentless as Evander could be, he would have broken his hands early on, and been essentially useless. Same goes for Ali and his high volume jabbing that often hit the foreheads of his opponents. Volume wouldnt work in Sullivan's time, else you were a fool.

[HomicideHenry]

Holyfield was greater at every aspect of Boxing than Sullivan. Hilarious that anyone thinks that dude could last four rounds with Evander. It would be swift and ugly, Holyfield in under 3 minutes.

I very much doubt it.

Holyfield's greatest wins came against men who had no discipline, were old, or were mentally weak with a low ring IQ (i.e, Douglas, Dokes, Tyson). Holyfield will always been an ATG, and he's a sure fire first ballot HOF'er, but he isnt stopping Sullivan quickly. If you are to condemn men of the early 20th century because they simply are from a bygone era and the majority of them were white, then you have to assume too that you believe Jeffries, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns, and even Johnson would have been blown away by Holyfield. I disagree with all that logic either. Cus if you are to not acknowledge their abilities, etc. you have to at the very least admit these were all superior men at least in the category of conditioning and toughness. Great as Evander was, even he could be shaken up by dark horses like Bert Cooper. I ain't saying Sullivan could beat him, or was a better all around boxer, but Sullivan isn't getting stopped no way, no how, unless he was blind drunk and next to death's door in one round, four rounds, or even eight rounds.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Holyfield was greater at every aspect of Boxing than Sullivan. Hilarious that anyone thinks that dude could last four rounds with Evander. It would be swift and ugly, Holyfield in under 3 minutes.

I very much doubt it.

Holyfield's greatest wins came against men who had no discipline, were old, or were mentally weak with a low ring IQ (i.e, Douglas, Dokes, Tyson). Holyfield will always been an ATG, and he's a sure fire first ballot HOF'er, but he isnt stopping Sullivan quickly. If you are to condemn men of the early 20th century because they simply are from a bygone era and the majority of them were white, then you have to assume too that you believe Jeffries, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns, and even Johnson would have been blown away by Holyfield. I disagree with all that logic either. Cus if you are to not acknowledge their abilities, etc. you have to at the very least admit these were all superior men at least in the category of conditioning and toughness. Great as Evander was, even he could be shaken up by dark horses like Bert Cooper. I ain't saying Sullivan could beat him, or was a better all around boxer, but Sullivan isn't getting stopped no way, no how, unless he was blind drunk and next to death's door in one round, four rounds, or even eight rounds.

Your assumptions are always hilarious. Are you even capable of having a conversation without making shit up? Who the hell said anything about him being white? Of the rest of your list, Evander would massacre Burns. No doubt about that.

You didn't ask for the ten biggest punchers. Winning rounds is offensive too. Evander had every punch in the book and he could deliver it in the lead or off of counters and in brilliant combinations. Ali & Holmes weren't offensively prolific? C'mon. You're one of those that goes too far in showing reverence to old timers. That list is a perfect example of it.

I'd have Riddick Bowe in the top 5.

[HomicideHenry]

Your assumptions are always hilarious. Are you even capable of having a conversation without making shit up? Who the hell said anything about him being white? Of the rest of your list, Evander would massacre Burns. No doubt about that.

You didn't ask for the ten biggest punchers. Winning rounds is offensive too. Evander had every punch in the book and he could deliver it in the lead or off of counters and in brilliant combinations. Ali & Holmes weren't offensively prolific? C'mon. You're one of those that goes too far in showing reverence to old timers. That list is a perfect example of it.

I'd have Riddick Bowe in the top 5.

The only assumption I make is (as another poster stated) that you make arguments just for the sake of starting arguments. Mind you I never once said Sullivan could beat Holyfield. This isn't a H2H match up thread. Get that through your head. This is about guys who were all offense, who dominated their eras. And no winning rounds isn't always about being offensive; again, as I stated before on pervious thread's, the question always comes down to does jabs and one-two's mean more or as much as power shots and aggression? Not in my mind, no matter how 'aggressive' you get with jabs, its still a damn jab. With your logic, then, I should include Max Schmeling into my list of offensive fighters because let's face it his kayo percentage was damn incredible for a counter puncher (59% in Germany, 50% outside of Gemany).

As for showing reverence to the old timers, that's not how I see it, I am simply including great fighters that seldom do anybody writes or debates about on this site; its almost as if the 1930s and prior simply didnt exist with some of you. Then again, (and NOW you can say I am assuming) I am talking to a man who would rather end all discussions with how great Ali was, and may as well throw away 125 years of history because nobody in your mind can ever remotely come close to beating Ali.

As for Bowe, that's ridiculous, outside of beating Holyfield by decision and kayo (I would hope a man 6'4" and 250 pounds would be able to anyways) what did he ever do to warrant a top five position? He got his ass handed to him twice by Golota, forget the fact Golota got DQ'd both times; and we have seen what Golota's real worth was. Who did he beat that was worth much? Gonzales? Hide? Whitaker? Please. He was a big, strong man who was a good boxer, but quite frankly saying he was anything more than a wasted talent with no discipline, much like Max Baer and Buster Douglas, is a stretch of the imagination. Oh yeah, he also flat out ducked Lennox Lewis, who would have made him look more choir boy than prizefighter.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Your assumptions are always hilarious. Are you even capable of having a conversation without making shit up? Who the hell said anything about him being white? Of the rest of your list, Evander would massacre Burns. No doubt about that.

You didn't ask for the ten biggest punchers. Winning rounds is offensive too. Evander had every punch in the book and he could deliver it in the lead or off of counters and in brilliant combinations. Ali & Holmes weren't offensively prolific? C'mon. You're one of those that goes too far in showing reverence to old timers. That list is a perfect example of it.

I'd have Riddick Bowe in the top 5.

The only assumption I make is (as another poster stated) that you make arguments just for the sake of starting arguments. Mind you I never once said Sullivan could beat Holyfield. This isn't a H2H match up thread. Get that through your head. This is about guys who were all offense, who dominated their eras. And no winning rounds isn't always about being offensive; again, as I stated before on pervious thread's, the question always comes down to does jabs and one-two's mean more or as much as power shots and aggression? Not in my mind, no matter how 'aggressive' you get with jabs, its still a damn jab. With your logic, then, I should include Max Schmeling into my list of offensive fighters because let's face it his kayo percentage was damn incredible for a counter puncher (59% in Germany, 50% outside of Gemany).

As for showing reverence to the old timers, that's not how I see it, I am simply including great fighters that seldom do anybody writes or debates about on this site; its almost as if the 1930s and prior simply didnt exist with some of you. Then again, (and NOW you can say I am assuming) I am talking to a man who would rather end all discussions with how great Ali was, and may as well throw away 125 years of history because nobody in your mind can ever remotely come close to beating Ali.

As for Bowe, that's ridiculous, outside of beating Holyfield by decision and kayo (I would hope a man 6'4" and 250 pounds would be able to anyways) what did he ever do to warrant a top five position? He got his ass handed to him twice by Golota, forget the fact Golota got DQ'd both times; and we have seen what Golota's real worth was. Who did he beat that was worth much? Gonzales? Hide? Whitaker? Please. He was a big, strong man who was a good boxer, but quite frankly saying he was anything more than a wasted talent with no discipline, much like Max Baer and Buster Douglas, is a stretch of the imagination. Oh yeah, he also flat out ducked Lennox Lewis, who would have made him look more choir boy than prizefighter.

If you think I'm posting just to illicit a response, why do you respond with novels? I certainly don't crank out 1,000 words for whom I deem to be a troll. John L begs for my attention. I guess he's butt hurt about something. You didn't ask for greatest knock out punchers, you asked for greatest offensive fighters. Get it through your thick skull that they are different.

I'm not at all confused at the topic, it's about offensive arsenals and Holyfield's dwarfs Sullivan's.

It seems like you're incredibly confused as to what your own topic is about. Why are you arguing Bowe's resume? Isn't this about offense? What did Johannsson do? He's a great fighter? You're quite a clown. Bowe could do anything offensively in a prize ring. Then again, you're a bumbling idiot and I shouldn't expect anything more than long winded jokes out of your keyboard.

If you can't handle a discussion STFU. This is like the 5th time you've accused me of being an Ali fan boy. Funny that others consider me an Ali hater. You forgot to invent that I think marciano's a bum. Want to add that little Rufus horseshit again? Don't you have any new manufactured material? Eat ass loser.

[The 1bangkid]

His head movement wasn't natural, it was programmed and thrown off by jabs.

Cus D'Amato and Atlas taught him well. However, once he broke away from all that discipline, he sorted to bulling opponents, dirty tactics, and being a head hunter. Such a waste of talent.