BoxRec

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:PURELY Technically probably Louis

But overall when everything that a fighter is about is factored in.....It's Ali.

A boxer is MORE than his pure tech ability, and Ali's tech strengths were not in short supply. But his ring generalship, ability to assess his opponent, overall physical and mental speed and chin put him a notch above.

I.M.H.O.

I'm not sure Holy is in this league. And there is the question of him juicing.

Don't forget Ali's mouth. He had a great one.

lol....well Mike Tyson and Liston would intimidate by being silent.....same idea turned on it's head I suppose.

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Larry had more power than Muhammad. He had the same disdain for going to the body. But his jab alone was powerful enough to get anyone's attention.

In most fights Holmes was a head huner, but I recall a number of fights where Holmes was quite effective to the body. In fact he was very good with a straight right to the body, which is not an easy punch to get away with. He did what he to based on his opponent, and many of his opponents were so over-matched that he didn't need to worry about landing anything to the body.

Which fights? He was capable and went downstairs a bit more in his comeback but I can't ever recall Larry doing the Morales right to the body consistently over the course of a fight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Larry had more power than Muhammad. He had the same disdain for going to the body. But his jab alone was powerful enough to get anyone's attention.

In most fights Holmes was a head huner, but I recall a number of fights where Holmes was quite effective to the body. In fact he was very good with a straight right to the body, which is not an easy punch to get away with. He did what he to based on his opponent, and many of his opponents were so over-matched that he didn't need to worry about landing anything to the body.

Which fights? He was capable and went downstairs a bit more in his comeback but I can't ever recall Larry doing the Morales right to the body consistently over the course of a fight.

Well it's hardly worth the pain of re-watching all of his fights, but I'm certain there were a number of his defenses when he showed some good bodywork. It's been a lot of years since I've seen his title defenses. Besides, I'm not saying he was ever anything like your typical Mexican FW from the 70's in any of his fights, but neither were very many HWs in history.

I wasn't asking you to re-watch his career. I assumed when you said you recalled a number of fights when he went effectively to the body that you were recalling specific bouts. I have his career set so I figured I would pop one of them in.

DetroitHxC wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:lol....well Mike Tyson and Liston would intimidate by being silent

I don't know if Mike "I want to throw down your kid and stomp on his testicles" Tyson did all his intimidating by being silent...

Well that was past his "silent prime".

Holy, Holmes, Ali and Louis are the top candidates I'd say. I'd probably go with Holmes, but it's a really tough call between he and the other 3 who had the widest array of skills.

gilgamesh wrote:Holy, Holmes, Ali and Louis are the top candidates I'd say. I'd probably go with Holmes, but it's a really tough call between he and the other 3 who had the widest array of skills.

Like the names.

I look at it like this:

Holyfield lacked defense at times

Holmes would be pretty spot on but didn't have a wide array of weapons

Ali for me just lacked the technical skills. He would be an example of what not to do as a fighter but his athletic ability and mind kept him ahead.

Louis as I said had speed power and was probably the best technical fighter period but his chin (not saying it was bad) was not great and at times could be slow of foot.

Crease wrote:I knew that people would bring up Muhammad Ali. In terms of Ali in my opinion he excelled in so many attributes and because he was was so gifted it was that that made him so great...
I agree with this poster when he says:

clubberlang wrote:Ali is certainly in with a shout, he had great foot work, lightning quick hands, undervalued power, accuracy, a brilliant tactical mind, a great chin, stamina, heart & durability.

Ali's only real flaw in my mind was his tendency to head hunt.

I think Ali had a few other flaws, for example he wasn't a great offensive fighter, he couldn't bring a fight the way that Frazier, Marciano or Dempsey could. And I also think that Ali (in some fights) was too reliant on his jab, and as such he got UDS when he could've got KOs.

Only my opinion.

Good Point. But i feel Ali was not as offensive as Tyson, Frazier, Marciano and Dempsey simply because he didn't need to be. The former were short and smaller heavyweights therefore needed to get in on the inside and stay there. Very few, if any taller boxers were as aggressive as shorter ones. An 'early Foreman' is the only one that comes to mind, and he was more of a ranged slugger than an aggressive brawler.

In any form of sport, you play to your own strengths. In Boxing, Ali simply had more of them than any other.

Ali was the most naturally talented.

Louis perhaps the best practiced form.

Frazier and Marciano and for a while Tyson were perhaps the most aggressive.

Holmes, Johnson, Tunney, Charles should be considered.

Each of these were so strong in certain areas that it placed them in the "nearly complete" category even if they were not "perfectly rounded".


Some of you will understand just what I'm gettin' at here. Some will scratch there heads and say..."Buzz, I hear you knockin, but you don't come in".

Jaclem, I know you'll back me up here.

If not, please refrain from comment.


......I just don't agree that Holyfield fits in here.

BoxBuzz wrote:Ali was the most naturally talented.

Louis perhaps the best practiced form.

Frazier and Marciano and for a while Tyson were perhaps the most aggressive.

Holmes, Johnson, Tunney, Charles should be considered.

Each of these were so strong in certain areas that it placed them in the "nearly complete" category even if they were not "perfectly rounded".

I think that is very well-put.

This is a very difficult call.

I suppose Joe Louis probably has the best case in most people's eyes.

Tunney might be underated. His chin and power was thought of a lot better in his time than it is now, but realistically he probably falls just short, in the Holmes, Ali lacking true power category. Jack Johnson probably falls into this category as well.

Sonny Liston was actually a very good call. He could do everything. Power, Box, Jab,Aggression etc. I actually think he might be the closest, without being the overall best. Although maybe there is that question mark in the heart category. Quite surprising when i think about it.

As much as i like Jeffries, it needs to be remembered how he was outboxed by the very best of his time (Corbett and Fitz). I know he improved towards the end, but i have to think that this was a little overstated. Fitz is actually a very interesting choice. He could technically do it all. One punch KO Power, aggression, counter puncher, proven chin, Heart, Stamina, Left hand. The only area he falls down in is that he wasnt actually a heavyweight Otherwise i think he could take it.

louis by far.

then:
ali, lewis, holmes, tunney, holy

and i think vitali k is underrated historywise.

I guess a lot depends on what is meant by "complete". Does it count against someone if a particular part of their game was not great but wasn't bad?
Louis didn't have a great chin; but he didn't have a glass jaw. Ali didn't have great power but obviously he had to have some power to stop all of those quality opponents.

Maybe the best way to judge how "complete" a fighter is to consider how well they did against a quality opponents with varying styles.

Liston was not complete. He was slow. He couldn't handle Ali (Clay) at all, and had a lot of trouble against Machen.

Tunney is always an interesting choice for me: the only thing is he didn't have a lot of fights at heavyweight, though more than most people realize.

Ali and Louis handled a variety of styles. Holmes to a lesser extent did as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:Liston was not complete. He was slow. He couldn't handle Ali (Clay) at all, and had a lot of trouble against Machen.

The scores for the Machen fight were Referee Whitey Domstad, 119-112; Judge Ely Caston, 118-114; and Judge Sam Heller, 118-116. It wouldn't have even been that close but Liston was penalized three points for low blows. Liston won 10 out of the 12 rounds without those point deductions, and Machen lasted the distance because he ran all night. Yeah, he had a lot of trouble with Machen.

if we studied each champion in the gym hitting bags etc. then i think we would pick joe louis or floyd patterson at top of list. its scary to think what floyd would be like if he were around today at lt. heavy with nutritionist and all. however, all around ill say jack johnson.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Liston was not complete. He was slow. He couldn't handle Ali (Clay) at all, and had a lot of trouble against Machen.

The scores for the Machen fight were Referee Whitey Domstad, 119-112; Judge Ely Caston, 118-114; and Judge Sam Heller, 118-116. It wouldn't have even been that close but Liston was penalized three points for low blows. Liston won 10 out of the 12 rounds without those point deductions, and Machen lasted the distance because he ran all night. Yeah, he had a lot of trouble with Machen.

So we now just go by the judges scorecards? Good to know. Now we won't ever again have to hear about any decision that Ali or Leonard ever won.
Liston had a lot of trouble with Machen. Several of the rounds were close. Liston never came close to stopping Machen. Liston did not look impressive in this fight. He had trouble catching opponents who could move well.

Jess Willard. Nah I'm kidding.

I agree with the chap above that mentioned Joe Louis.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Liston was not complete. He was slow. He couldn't handle Ali (Clay) at all, and had a lot of trouble against Machen.

The scores for the Machen fight were Referee Whitey Domstad, 119-112; Judge Ely Caston, 118-114; and Judge Sam Heller, 118-116. It wouldn't have even been that close but Liston was penalized three points for low blows. Liston won 10 out of the 12 rounds without those point deductions, and Machen lasted the distance because he ran all night. Yeah, he had a lot of trouble with Machen.

Well let's not underestimate what three "nutcrackers" (Merry Christmas) From Sonny Liston might do to one's game. Apparently for some reason Sonny felt obliged to "reach low".

I'm just sayin......

I'd like to see a Liston Quarry affair. As Quarry could have been considered rather well balanced as a fighter as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Liston was not complete. He was slow. He couldn't handle Ali (Clay) at all, and had a lot of trouble against Machen.

The scores for the Machen fight were Referee Whitey Domstad, 119-112; Judge Ely Caston, 118-114; and Judge Sam Heller, 118-116. It wouldn't have even been that close but Liston was penalized three points for low blows. Liston won 10 out of the 12 rounds without those point deductions, and Machen lasted the distance because he ran all night. Yeah, he had a lot of trouble with Machen.

So we now just go by the judges scorecards? Good to know. Now we won't ever again have to hear about any decision that Ali or Leonard ever won.
Liston had a lot of trouble with Machen. Several of the rounds were close. Liston never came close to stopping Machen. Liston did not look impressive in this fight. He had trouble catching opponents who could move well.

Maybe when the judges get it right? (BTW, when did I ever bitch about any decision for Ali or Leonard?) I thought Liston won 10 out of 12 scoring by rounds and without the point deductions. You saying Liston had " a lot of trouble" must equate to "He didn't stop him." Machen ran like a little girl;it's hard to stop someone who is fighting with a "I don't care if I win; I just want to go the distance" frame of mind. Trouble catching fighters who could move well? He stopped Zora Folley - an excellent defense fighter - in just three rounds. And Liston didn't seem to have any trouble catching Henry Clark - when Liston was about 38!

Sonny had a very rugged career coming up. In his pre-title days, every fighter but one (his second pro opponent) had winning records at the time Liston fought them. He fought very few "stiffs."

observer1 wrote:Ali without a doubt imo

Ali could not fight well in the inside. Holds the opponent's head too often. Never went to the body.

At their very best, the 2 most complete hws to me were:
Evander Holyfield
Ezzard Charles

Butterbean and Buster Mathis Jr, were "completely heavy".

Does that count?

Did Holyfield "completely" help himself to the juice? Or is that purely a rumor? I'm serious, I tend to discount some of his accomplishments perhaps unfairly due to this rumor. I have no honest idea if is factual or not. I may have been suckered in based on some accusations that I don't think have been proven. But some of the empirical stuff has lead some of us to believe it has basis in fact.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

raylawpc wrote: The scores for the Machen fight were Referee Whitey Domstad, 119-112; Judge Ely Caston, 118-114; and Judge Sam Heller, 118-116. It wouldn't have even been that close but Liston was penalized three points for low blows. Liston won 10 out of the 12 rounds without those point deductions, and Machen lasted the distance because he ran all night. Yeah, he had a lot of trouble with Machen.

So we now just go by the judges scorecards? Good to know. Now we won't ever again have to hear about any decision that Ali or Leonard ever won.
Liston had a lot of trouble with Machen. Several of the rounds were close. Liston never came close to stopping Machen. Liston did not look impressive in this fight. He had trouble catching opponents who could move well.

Maybe when the judges get it right? (BTW, when did I ever bitch about any decision for Ali or Leonard?) I thought Liston won 10 out of 12 scoring by rounds and without the point deductions. You saying Liston had " a lot of trouble" must equate to "He didn't stop him." Machen ran like a little girl;it's hard to stop someone who is fighting with a "I don't care if I win; I just want to go the distance" frame of mind. Trouble catching fighters who could move well? He stopped Zora Folley - an excellent defense fighter - in just three rounds. And Liston didn't seem to have any trouble catching Henry Clark - when Liston was about 38!

Sonny had a very rugged career coming up. In his pre-title days, every fighter but one (his second pro opponent) had winning records at the time Liston fought them. He fought very few "stiffs."

You have to count the point deduictions. A low blow can affect how an opponent can perform. There is a reason that a fighters loses a point. I don't think you can strictly go by the scoring to judge how compttive a fight is. In one fight, one fighter might win 10 out of 12 rounds, but many rounds were close. In others a guy can win 10 rounds that were decisively his. That doesn't mean that both fights were just as competitive. Liston did not have any easy time with Machen. It is an exaggeration that Machen just ran from Liston. Machen was a defesnive fighter, but he didn't just run from Liston. If Liston just caught up to most opponents one time, he stop them, which is all he had to do with Folley who didn't have a great chin. i Agree that Liston fought some good fighters on his way up.

Point deductions count on scorecards. They don't indicate a fighter having trouble.

They can certainly be an indication of a fighter being frustrated by things not going as easily as planned. A low blow can throw a fighter off of his game. Three certainly can. They have to count when judging the closeness of a fight. If you aren't going to factor in point deductuons you might as well not have them. Just let a guy throw as many low blows as he wants.