Who is the closest fighter ever to being perfect?

[Ruthless-RKO]

If you were to build the 'perfect boxer', which fighter in history would be most similar? We are talking attributes here, not achievements!

[BoxBuzz]

Of those I'd go with Duran, since I'd favor him over Mayweather.

Jones and Ali fought to much in their own style to qualify....perfect in my mind, means that you attained the fundamentals, and then perhaps transcended them....neither of them were ever good fundamentalists. Just successful as hell with their chosen style.

I'd see Toney in that group as well.....but as we saw, Jones managed to dominate him....so perfect/great fundamentals are not always the answer.

Ahh...and Charles and Moore were good examples.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Duran, but he was better skillwise at 47.

[Tomasino]

I went with Robinson. At his best he could do it all. His power was excellent, chin, stamina, heart, footwork. He run rings around guys in his prime and fought toe to toe with legends in his waning years.

[BoxBuzz]

I knew I forgot a name...I think Monzon fits this category....

I also think he beats Robinson at MW......

But it's hard to argue against SRR overall... taking his WW domination pretty convincingly into the MW realm....

and Willie Pep might need to be included in this.

[Tomasino]

I knew I forgot a name...I think Monzon fits this category....

I also think he beats Robinson at MW......

But it's hard to argue against SRR overall... taking his WW domination pretty convincingly into the MW realm....

and Willie Pep might need to be included in this.

Monzon was slow of hand and foot. So I can't have him as the template of perfection. I don't doubt he could have beaten the aging Ray.

Pep doesn't hit hard enough but I always enjoy watching footage of him, even post plane crash he was a marvel.

Maybe a prime, Lt Heavy Ezzard Charles would be a better choice.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Actually, I might have to go with hagler.the one thing he could use more of is one shot power. Beautiful boxer.

[Seamus]

Willie Pep. Of the guys listed I'd take Robinson slightly over Leonard.

[IKSRTFO]

Of those I'd go with Duran, since I'd favor him over Mayweather.

Jones and Ali fought to much in their own style to qualify....perfect in my mind, means that you attained the fundamentals, and then perhaps transcended them....neither of them were ever good fundamentalists. Just successful as hell with their chosen style.

I'd see Toney in that group as well.....but as we saw, Jones managed to dominate him....so perfect/great fundamentals are not always the answer.

Ahh...and Charles and Moore were good examples.

Toney was just lazy and fighting lower than he should. Jones Hopkins was a better example of fundamentals not always being the answer.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Even the GREATEST[Ali] said it POUND FOR POUND King SRR The Brown Bomber said Robinson could knock you out going backwards

[Kalan]

If you were to build the 'perfect boxer', which fighter in history would be most similar? We are talking attributes here, not achievements!

Anthony Joshua is the only Heavyweight Champion in History with a perfect KO ratio of 100% and a perfect winning ratio of 100%.. Some of the most perfect fights I've seen boxed against a highly skilled opponent was Roberto Duran's rubber match win over Estaban Dejesus... Eder Jofre's win over Vicente Saldivar... Salvador Sanchez's win over Rubin Castillo... James Toney and Mike McCallum both did a great job in their draw...

Against not so skilled opponents some of the best efforts were: Manny Pacquiao vs Ricky Hatton... Harold Johnson's win over Doug Jones... Jose Napoles' wins over Curtis Cokes... Joe Louis vs Max Baer... Sergei Kovalev vs Ismayl Sallikh... Jack Johnson vs Jim Jeffries... Larry Holmes vs Earnie Shavers in their first fight... Anthony Joshua's win over Charles Martin... Roy Jones vs Montel Griffin in their rematch... Vasyl Lomachenko vs Roman Martinez... Gene Tunney vs Jack Dempsey 1... Gennady Golovkin vs David Lemieux... Errol Spence vs Chris Algieri

More recent boxing feats are more fresh in my mind -- but some the YouTube fights before my time were astounding performances.

[BoxBuzz]

Of those I'd go with Duran, since I'd favor him over Mayweather.

Jones and Ali fought to much in their own style to qualify....perfect in my mind, means that you attained the fundamentals, and then perhaps transcended them....neither of them were ever good fundamentalists. Just successful as hell with their chosen style.

I'd see Toney in that group as well.....but as we saw, Jones managed to dominate him....so perfect/great fundamentals are not always the answer.

Ahh...and Charles and Moore were good examples.

Toney was just lazy and fighting lower than he should. Jones Hopkins was a better example of fundamentals not always being the answer.

I assume you mean their first fight....and I agree that's a good call.

[BoxBuzz]

Actually, I might have to go with hagler.the one thing he could use more of is one shot power. Beautiful boxer.

There was a fella who used to drop by and he made it his mission to convince everyone that Hagler was lame southpaw "plodder". Do you remember who that was? He repeated this mantra ad nauseam.

[BoxBuzz]

I knew I forgot a name...I think Monzon fits this category....

I also think he beats Robinson at MW......

But it's hard to argue against SRR overall... taking his WW domination pretty convincingly into the MW realm....

and Willie Pep might need to be included in this.

Monzon was slow of hand and foot. So I can't have him as the template of perfection. I don't doubt he could have beaten the aging Ray.

Pep doesn't hit hard enough but I always enjoy watching footage of him, even post plane crash he was a marvel.

Maybe a prime, Lt Heavy Ezzard Charles would be a better choice.

Monzon was SURE of hand and foot. Deliberate is another word you could use....but he was way too accurate for anyone facing him to call him slow....no matter what it looked like from the cheap seats.

[Crease]

perfect in my mind, means that you attained the fundamentals

I would expand on this point & say that if a boxers is okay/good at everything, it won't necessarily make them great boxing champions.

Cases in point:

Muhammad Ali was a great boxer. He used his speed & footwork to great effect, but wad Ali an effective come-forward pressure fighter? I'd have to say no to that.

Roberto Duran was pure controlled agression in the ring. But was he a great defensive tacticitioner? I'd have to say no, Roberto's greatest defense was a cast-iron jaw & responding fire with fire.

In the olden days (which modern boxing presides from) boxers were assessed & their trainers told them to play to their strengths.

Charley Goldman taught Rocky Marciano how to shorten his punches & be more direct with his shots to maximise his power. Rather than throwing shots from a vast variety of angles.

Ray Arcel didn't change Duran's style - he just accentuated it to get the most from Roberto.

Emmanuel Steward worked with Wladimir Klitchsko for years & taught him the importance of his jad. And how to respind when his opponent gets on the inside.

Boxers always play to their strengths. A boxer can be REALLY good at 1 or 2 things & that can be enough for him to be successful.

[Crease]

From that list I'd definitely be picking Robinson.

[Kalan]

First intelligent comment you've made BuzzBox.. Monzon wasn't slow.

He used his height and reach very well and didn't crouch or lean into opponents with his head. He didn't employ a lot of superfluous movement and feinting. He was an aggressive fighter who controlled the center of the ring and made opponents move around him. That’s very unusual for a very tall, lanky fighter -- to be the guy who chases the shorter guys down.

When certain fans don’t see somebody dancing around like a showboat and throwing flashy combinations like Amir Khan, they call them slow. But it’s more the speed at which your fist can reach a vulnerable chin with accuracy and force that counts. If you don’t get out of the way of those shots – for me you’re not that speedy.

[Crease]

There's a few other fighters coming to my mind.

Henry Armstrong - did everything really well.

Benny Leonard was the same.

Joe Louis could outbox the brawlers (Schmeling & Baer) & overpower the boxers (Conn & Walcott).

And also - it seems to me that Evander Holyfield doesn't have too many glaring errors in his boxing.

[Crease]

I'd pribablt throw in Salvador Sanchez too.
He could box & he coyld bang.

[Kalan]

Roberto Duran was pure controlled agression in the ring. But was he a great defensive tacticitioner? I'd have to say no, Roberto's greatest defense was a cast-iron jaw & responding fire with fire

Duran was a good defender when he wanted to be. The 3rd Dejesus fight was his best effort... He shut down Dejesus's offense with his defense and knocked him out.. Dejesus was a real good offensive fighter and brought out his skill.. Duran also boxed well for stretches of his first Leonard fight, but it wasn't his character to fight defensively -- he wanted to go to war and show contempt for the other boxers' power... That's a weakness a lot of fighters have.

[Kalan]

Ray Robinson was shut out by Ralph Jones and decked by Artie Levine, Tommy Bell, Rocky Graziano, and even Jake LaMotta... He got tagged a lot so I wouldn't call him a great defender ... Henry Armstrong, likewise took a lot of hits in many, many fights.. It was more his ability to absorb punches like Jake LaMotta or Jack Dempsey than his ability to defend himself.. He took them, and kept coming and throwing.

Great defensive boxers: Salvador Sanchez.. Gene Tunney.. Willie Pep before the plane crash.. Floyd Mayweather.. prime Jack Johnson

[elmersalsa]

perfect in my mind, means that you attained the fundamentals

I would expand on this point & say that if a boxers is okay/good at everything, it won't necessarily make them great boxing champions.

Cases in point:

Muhammad Ali was a great boxer. He used his speed & footwork to great effect, but wad Ali an effective come-forward pressure fighter? I'd have to say no to that.

Roberto Duran was pure controlled agression in the ring. But was he a great defensive tacticitioner? I'd have to say no, Roberto's greatest defense was a cast-iron jaw & responding fire with fire.

In the olden days (which modern boxing presides from) boxers were assessed & their trainers told them to play to their strengths.

Charley Goldman taught Rocky Marciano how to shorten his punches & be more direct with his shots to maximise his power. Rather than throwing shots from a vast variety of angles.

Ray Arcel didn't change Duran's style - he just accentuated it to get the most from Roberto.

Emmanuel Steward worked with Wladimir Klitchsko for years & taught him the importance of his jad. And how to respind when his opponent gets on the inside.

Boxers always play to their strengths. A boxer can be REALLY good at 1 or 2 things & that can be enough for him to be successful.

You haven't seen really The Hands of Stone fight.

[elmersalsa]

To me, these fighters were more complete boxers than the great Sugar Ray Robinson:
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran
Sugar Ray Leonard
Salvador Sanchez
Eusebio Pedroza.
Marvelous

[elmersalsa]

Roberto Duran was pure controlled agression in the ring. But was he a great defensive tacticitioner? I'd have to say no, Roberto's greatest defense was a cast-iron jaw & responding fire with fire

Duran was a good defender when he wanted to be. The 3rd Dejesus fight was his best effort... He shut down Dejesus's offense with his defense and knocked him out.. Dejesus was a real good offensive fighter and brought out his skill.. Duran also boxed well for stretches of his first Leonard fight, but it wasn't his character to fight defensively -- he wanted to go to war and show contempt for the other boxers' power... That's a weakness a lot of fighters have.

You got it right, Kalan.

Also, people need to see the first Sugar Ray Leonard fight. He was a complete fighting machine when he was really on.

[jas80s]

At the time he first fought Randy Turpin, Robinson had been fighting for over 10 years and was a ridiculous 128-1-2 fighting mostly as a welterweight. His one loss was to Lamotta and he gave away 16 pounds in that fight. I think when people talk of him being the greatest fighter ever, they were referring to this run as well, not simply his fine record as a passed his best MW. However, it seems that many years later, everybody wants to talk about his run at middleweight in the latter third of his career.

Was Ray Robinson, after more than a decade of fighting, fighting at 160 pounds, the most perfect fighter ever? I'd say no. But, why is it that everybody wants to throw out the first 131 fights of his life like they mean nothing. I'm sure there are those that can find a way to dump on his record in those 131 fights, but take a look, I recognized a few names.

Shall we toss out everything Duran did at Lightweight and then rate him? I don't see the most perfect fighter there either.

Maybe it IS Valero...