Who is the closest fighter ever to being perfect?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

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.

I don't, must have had him on my kalan list.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hagler was definitely monzon's superior in this discussion.

[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.

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.

Damned right... NOBODY wins 72 of their first 73 fights, as Duran did, if they can't box... Henry Armstrong, for instance, won 55 of his first 73 fights.

I know Ray Robinson won 71 of his first 73 fights, but it's not the same as Duran.. Robinson was matched to get wins.. Duran fought a lot of guys who could box really well, such as Monroe Brooks.. Estaban De Jesus.. Edwin Viruet.. Lou Bizzarro.. Ray Lampkin.. Ken Buchanan.. Ray Leonard and he was still beating these guys... Robinson fought a couple guys who could box---like Marty Servo who he beat by SD and the MSG crowd booed the decision for 20 minutes---but SRR didn't fight the same caliber of boxers that Duran did to that point, and actually never did.

There was a point where Duran wasn't Duran anymore... Where he didn't give a major crap whether he won or lost... That came with all the money and accolades of the first Leonard Fight... Duran was King of the World after he beat Leonard and that kind of led to the "NO MAS" fight.. the Benitez fight.. The Kirkland Laing fight, and other bad nights.. Duran always seemed a little soft and chubby the rest of the way.. He had money and fame to burn.. That's no credit to Duran, or any excuse for his attitude -- but that's what happened.

[Kalan]

For anyone how thinks Hagler was Monzon's equal... Monzon destroyed Welterweight great Jose Napoles... Monzon beat Rodrigo Valdez in his 99th and 100th fights when he was 34-years old... He beat Welterweight and Middleweight great Emile Griffith twice... Monzon knocked out Middleweight great Nino Benvenuti twice... and Monzon won 15 of 15 World Middleweight Title Fights in an era of great Middleweights.

Hagler fought only once a year in 1985, '86, and '87 when there were tough Middleweights coming up... The WBA stripped Hagler for not fighting Herol Graham, its top-ranked contender... The IBF did not strip Hagler, but it refused to sanction the Leonard fight... Hagler failed to beat Welterweight great Ray Leonard... Hagler won 13 of 15 World Middleweight Title Fights... Hagler failed to stop, floor, or hurt a 35-year-old Benny Biscoe.. Rodrigo Valdez knocked a 31-year-old Benny Briscoe out with 1 powerful left hook, for Briscoe's only KO loss.. Monzon lasted longer than Hagler, was more active as champion, and beat better Middleweights.

[Crease]

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

Really?

I suggest you google Ray Arcel's comment (sic).

[elmersalsa]

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

Really?

I suggest you google Ray Arcel's comment (sic).

With the comments that you have made, you haven't seen the great Roberto Duran fight, really. Watch his fights again, especially pre-No Mas

[IKSRTFO]

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.

Like Thomas Hearns or Joe Calzaghe. Both made the best of their strengths and were both hell to deal with in different ways.

[Kalan]

Obviously if a boxer has flaws they're not perfect by definition. Hearns, Ali, and Calzaghe were badly flawed. I agree they were effective.

There were very few nearly flawless boxers even at the heights of their careers -- some were Gene Tunney, Willie Pep, Jack Johnson, Salvadore Sanchez, and Floyd Mayweather. Duran at the height of his lightweight career (De Jesus III) wasn't far off either.

[BoxBuzz]

Obviously if a boxer has flaws they're not perfect by definition. Hearns, Ali, and Calzaghe were badly flawed. I agree they were effective.

There were very few nearly flawless boxers even at the heights of their careers -- some were Gene Tunney, Willie Pep, Jack Johnson, Salvadore Sanchez, and Floyd Mayweather. Duran at the height of his lightweight career (De Jesus III) wasn't far off either.

So a flawless fighter loses to the effective fighter on many occasions according to your semantics.

I like to call that sort of thinking.... mumbo jumbo.

[jas80s]

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.

Damned right... NOBODY wins 72 of their first 73 fights, as Duran did, if they can't box... Henry Armstrong, for instance, won 55 of his first 73 fights.

I know Ray Robinson won 71 of his first 73 fights, but it's not the same as Duran.. Robinson was matched to get wins.. Duran fought a lot of guys who could box really well, such as Monroe Brooks.. Estaban De Jesus.. Edwin Viruet.. Lou Bizzarro.. Ray Lampkin.. Ken Buchanan.. Ray Leonard and he was still beating these guys... Robinson fought a couple guys who could box---like Marty Servo who he beat by SD and the MSG crowd booed the decision for 20 minutes---but SRR didn't fight the same caliber of boxers that Duran did to that point, and actually never did.

There was a point where Duran wasn't Duran anymore... Where he didn't give a major crap whether he won or lost... That came with all the money and accolades of the first Leonard Fight... Duran was King of the World after he beat Leonard and that kind of led to the "NO MAS" fight.. the Benitez fight.. The Kirkland Laing fight, and other bad nights.. Duran always seemed a little soft and chubby the rest of the way.. He had money and fame to burn.. That's no credit to Duran, or any excuse for his attitude -- but that's what happened.

I can see that your opinion is that SRR is not among the ATG's, but your attempts to justify his absence with anything other than your opinion of his fighting ability contains double standards that hurt your argument. For example...

In dismissing his accomplishments over the first 131 fights of his career, you point out the Servo fight in which he won a controversial decision. OK, let's set aside that Servo was a terrific fighter who became welterweight champion, in an era when there was exactly one champion as opposed to today when practically anybody who can throw a punch with either hand is a two division champion, but I digress. You attempted to dismiss what Robinson did by cherry picking a controversial decision. Yet, Floyd Mayweather is on your list of great fighters and he had a very controversial win himself over Jose Luis Castillo. So, I am not convinced that the mere presence of a controversial win should undermine his accomplishments.

Second, you say that Robinson was "matched to win". I am not sure what that means, but I can only surmise that you are suggesting that he avoided certain fighters. Once again, I am not sure how you do that for 190 plus fights when your opponent list contains a silly amount of HOF caliber fighters, but again I digress. I think I know where you are going with this, Robinson never fought Charley Burley, and let's throw in Holman Williams for the hell of it. OK, the central thing to consider here to my eyes is that NOBODY wanted to see those fights which means there wouldn't be much of a prize in that prize fight. That would be enough for me, but even if it is not enough for you consider that Jack Johnson refused to fight his own "Black Murderers Row" citing the same reason. For the record, Jack Johnson is on your list of ATG fighters. So, again there would be appear to be a higher standard for Robinson.

Finally, Duran was "no longer Duran" after the first Leonard fight. But, Robinson after 130 fights and over a decade of fighting practically every month and 20 pounds north of his debut weight was the same Robinson as ever? You could easily dump on Duran's record starting at 147, in fact it would be even easier than dumping on Robinson's record. A difference in their career paths over the last third of their careers would seem to be nothing more than your opinion. If you wanted to argue that Duran was better at Lightweight than Robinson at Welter, that would be fine, but dumping on Robinson's record in his last 50 fights while excusing Duran's late career with a casual, "he just wasn't Duran anymore" strains credibility.

And the scary thing is, these inconsistencies in your approach can be found on THESE, stupidly awesome fighters! I am not even discussing some of the guys on your list that, shall we say, might not be consensus choices among those who have followed boxing closely for a long time.

As always, I have no problem with the suggestion that Robinson could be overrated by some, but the attempts at some kind of logical breakdown of his record and that of others produces these inconsistencies that illuminate a far simpler truth; In your opinion, Ray Robinson is overrated. I appreciate opinions, but I just can't see how this guy doesn't stack up, it seems like he will forever be punished by the fact that his career continued after 27 fights and Edwin Valero's did not.

[Ambling Alp II]

Obviously nobody is perfect. How can someone be perfect in even one area? Nobody had a perfect left hook, a perfect defense, perfect hand speed etc.

Some guys were very good at all areas. Harold Johnson for example, was good at just about everything.

Other guys were great fantastic at some things and not at others. The best usually managed to maximize their strengths and minimize what they did not do well.
Some guys are considered "flawed" because they don't fight how normally fighters are taught. for example, you generally don't teach a fighter to keep his hands low. However, if you are blessed with great ability and know what you are doing, (such as Tunney, Ali, Holmes, Roy Jones) you are actually better offensively doing that and just a s good defensively.

[BoxBuzz]

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...

Nahh...it's Ottke.....

[BoxBuzz]

On a serious note, I think a fully focused Pernell Whitaker may have been the best boxing machine ever.

But he has losses on his record.....like that time Chavez beat him all up. So I suppose it just can't be.

[Scypion]

Robinson.

[man]

early ali, he had it all, including
the brains. pure boxing abilities
it would be robinson for me.

[man]

On a serious note, I think a fully focused Pernell Whitaker may have been the best boxing machine ever.

But he has losses on his record.....like that time Chavez beat him all up. So I suppose it just can't be.

[Tomasino]

Lomachenko might be the guy. He does everything very well.

[littlepug]

all depends on what you like and what your perception of "perfect" is, in terms of ring IQ, heart, body shape, footwork and technique then ray leonard takes some beating

[Crease]

Like Thomas Hearns or Joe Calzaghe. Both made the best of their strengths and were both hell to deal with in different ways.

Exactly. And two fine examples I might add.

[Crease]

NOBODY wins 72 of their first 73 fights, as Duran did, if they can't box... Henry Armstrong, for instance, won 55 of his first 73 fights.

It was a different time. Henry didn't paid anywhere near the amount that Duran got for his big superfights, so he had to fight more often.

I know Ray Robinson won 71 of his first 73 fights, but it's not the same as Duran.. Robinson was matched to get wins..

It sounds like your accusing Robinson of taking easy fights, and that just didn't happen. Robinson cleaned out the Welterweight division before he even became the Champion, he had to wait for his title shot. I would say that Robinson was ready for a Welterweight title shot around 1943. But if anything, he was avoided and people didn't want to fight him. For example Freddie 'Red' Cochrane was a World Welterweight Champion, yet never fought Sugar Ray.

Duran fought a lot of guys who could box really well, such as Monroe Brooks.. Estaban De Jesus.. Edwin Viruet.. Lou Bizzarro.. Ray Lampkin.. Ken Buchanan.. Ray Leonard and he was still beating these guys... Robinson fought a couple guys who could box---like Marty Servo who he beat by SD and the MSG crowd booed the decision for 20 minutes---but SRR didn't fight the same caliber of boxers that Duran did to that point, and actually never did.

You sure about that?

Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Jake LaMotta, Rocky Graziano, Tommy Bell, Jose Basora, Carl "Bobo" Olson, Randolph Turpin, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio. (And that's not even counting Servo, who he beat repeatedly)

All in all, I'd say that Robinson's record is pretty comprehensive. And it's ahead of Duran's - who happened to lose a lot of his big fights (2 against Leonard, loss to Hearns & Hagler)

[Controversial]

NOBODY wins 72 of their first 73 fights, as Duran did, if they can't box... Henry Armstrong, for instance, won 55 of his first 73 fights.

It was a different time. Henry didn't paid anywhere near the amount that Duran got for his big superfights, so he had to fight more often.

I know Ray Robinson won 71 of his first 73 fights, but it's not the same as Duran.. Robinson was matched to get wins..

It sounds like your accusing Robinson of taking easy fights, and that just didn't happen. Robinson cleaned out the Welterweight division before he even became the Champion, he had to wait for his title shot. I would say that Robinson was ready for a Welterweight title shot around 1943. But if anything, he was avoided and people didn't want to fight him. For example Freddie 'Red' Cochrane was a World Welterweight Champion, yet never fought Sugar Ray.

Duran fought a lot of guys who could box really well, such as Monroe Brooks.. Estaban De Jesus.. Edwin Viruet.. Lou Bizzarro.. Ray Lampkin.. Ken Buchanan.. Ray Leonard and he was still beating these guys... Robinson fought a couple guys who could box---like Marty Servo who he beat by SD and the MSG crowd booed the decision for 20 minutes---but SRR didn't fight the same caliber of boxers that Duran did to that point, and actually never did.

You sure about that?

Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Jake LaMotta, Rocky Graziano, Tommy Bell, Jose Basora, Carl "Bobo" Olson, Randolph Turpin, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio. (And that's not even counting Servo, who he beat repeatedly)

All in all, I'd say that Robinson's record is pretty comprehensive. And it's ahead of Duran's - who happened to lose a lot of his big fights (2 against Leonard, loss to Hearns & Hagler)

Put it this way, prior to winning his very first world title SRR beat 15 top 10 contenders (excluding rematches)

Duran prior to winning his first world title beat one top 10 contender.

[Crease]

Put it this way, prior to winning his very first world title SRR beat 15 top 10 contenders (excluding rematches)

Duran prior to winning his first world title beat one top 10 contender.

Eloquently put.

Don't get me wrong, Duran's a great fighter with a great record... But there's just no comparison is there?

[Kalan]

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.

Damned right... NOBODY wins 72 of their first 73 fights, as Duran did, if they can't box... Henry Armstrong, for instance, won 55 of his first 73 fights.

I know Ray Robinson won 71 of his first 73 fights, but it's not the same as Duran.. Robinson was matched to get wins.. Duran fought a lot of guys who could box really well, such as Monroe Brooks.. Estaban De Jesus.. Edwin Viruet.. Lou Bizzarro.. Ray Lampkin.. Ken Buchanan.. Ray Leonard and he was still beating these guys... Robinson fought a couple guys who could box---like Marty Servo who he beat by SD and the MSG crowd booed the decision for 20 minutes---but SRR didn't fight the same caliber of boxers that Duran did to that point, and actually never did.

There was a point where Duran wasn't Duran anymore... Where he didn't give a major crap whether he won or lost... That came with all the money and accolades of the first Leonard Fight... Duran was King of the World after he beat Leonard and that kind of led to the "NO MAS" fight.. the Benitez fight.. The Kirkland Laing fight, and other bad nights.. Duran always seemed a little soft and chubby the rest of the way.. He had money and fame to burn.. That's no credit to Duran, or any excuse for his attitude -- but that's what happened.

I can see that your opinion is that SRR is not among the ATG's, but your attempts to justify his absence with anything other than your opinion of his fighting ability contains double standards that hurt your argument. For example...

In dismissing his accomplishments over the first 131 fights of his career, you point out the Servo fight in which he won a controversial decision. OK, let's set aside that Servo was a terrific fighter who became welterweight champion, in an era when there was exactly one champion as opposed to today when practically anybody who can throw a punch with either hand is a two division champion, but I digress. You attempted to dismiss what Robinson did by cherry picking a controversial decision. Yet, Floyd Mayweather is on your list of great fighters and he had a very controversial win himself over Jose Luis Castillo. So, I am not convinced that the mere presence of a controversial win should undermine his accomplishments.

Second, you say that Robinson was "matched to win". I am not sure what that means, but I can only surmise that you are suggesting that he avoided certain fighters. Once again, I am not sure how you do that for 190 plus fights when your opponent list contains a silly amount of HOF caliber fighters, but again I digress. I think I know where you are going with this, Robinson never fought Charley Burley, and let's throw in Holman Williams for the hell of it. OK, the central thing to consider here to my eyes is that NOBODY wanted to see those fights which means there wouldn't be much of a prize in that prize fight. That would be enough for me, but even if it is not enough for you consider that Jack Johnson refused to fight his own "Black Murderers Row" citing the same reason. For the record, Jack Johnson is on your list of ATG fighters. So, again there would be appear to be a higher standard for Robinson.

Finally, Duran was "no longer Duran" after the first Leonard fight. But, Robinson after 130 fights and over a decade of fighting practically every month and 20 pounds north of his debut weight was the same Robinson as ever? You could easily dump on Duran's record starting at 147, in fact it would be even easier than dumping on Robinson's record. A difference in their career paths over the last third of their careers would seem to be nothing more than your opinion. If you wanted to argue that Duran was better at Lightweight than Robinson at Welter, that would be fine, but dumping on Robinson's record in his last 50 fights while excusing Duran's late career with a casual, "he just wasn't Duran anymore" strains credibility.

And the scary thing is, these inconsistencies in your approach can be found on THESE, stupidly awesome fighters! I am not even discussing some of the guys on your list that, shall we say, might not be consensus choices among those who have followed boxing closely for a long time.

As always, I have no problem with the suggestion that Robinson could be overrated by some, but the attempts at some kind of logical breakdown of his record and that of others produces these inconsistencies that illuminate a far simpler truth; In your opinion, Ray Robinson is overrated. I appreciate opinions, but I just can't see how this guy doesn't stack up, it seems like he will forever be punished by the fact that his career continued after 27 fights and Edwin Valero's did not.

I don't think Valero should be punished because of his mental illness and because he was a 2-Division world Champion who died undefeated and untied.

Jack Johnson fought Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVey, and Hank Griffin... He beat them all.. They didn't qualify for Title shots. Too bad.

Duran started fighting at 119 and won a World MIddleweight Title which is 41 pounds and 34% north of that... Robinson started fighting at 135 and tried to win the LHW Title which is 40 pounds and 30% north of that.. Robinson made 1 attempt to win the LHW Title and Duran made several attempts to win the Middleweight Title.. Robinson decided to stay at 160 where he was tall, ripped, and strong for the weight.. Duran decided to fight at 160 were he was very short, pudgy, and weak for the weight.. Robinson sought the Middleweight Title for the last time at 39.. Duran sought the Middleweight Title for the last time when he was 47, an age where Robinson was safely retired.. Duran didn't have a chance in Hell, but he tried..

After Joey Maxim beat Robinson in defense of the Light Heavyweight Title Robinson declined a rematch...which would have been a bigger fight... He also declined to fight Archie Moore for the LHW Title... I believe SRR fought Maxim because Joey was hittable, slow, and a soft puncher... but after Maxim stopped SRR he clearly didn't want any more... Robinson fans blamed the heat - fine... But Robinson didn't want a repeat and it was just as hot in that ring for Maxim.

[Crease]

I give up talking to Kalan. There's just no communicating with him.

[Syntax Error]

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.

Like Thomas Hearns or Joe Calzaghe. Both made the best of their strengths and were both hell to deal with in different ways.

Tommy Hearns would have been unbeatable if he had Joe Calzaghe's stamina.