BoxRec

Just out of curiousity, convict, what criteria do you apply to rate a boxer as "good"?

What do you mean?? If its what i think you mean then plz go ask someone else about whos who in boxing, For the record and what its worth (nothing) i ment as a Aus fighter in general based on Previous/up coming Aus fighters. Nothing more nothing less.

I meant exactly what I said; however, I will rephrase it.

When determining whether a fighter is "good", what factors do you look at? Is it a case on wins of credible opposition, an undefeated record, a high knockout percentage, perceived potential, handspeed, mobility, a solid chin, etc?

And just to give it a bit of context, who do you rate as "good" in Australian boxing?

Thanks for your time.

bump

Ive always believed Hussy was a very good boxer, In his early days as a none pro he seemed unbeatable.

I liked Mundines skill, lack off or what he has is pretty impressive as a boxer not matter how fake he has become.

As for the rest of your question - Cool Willy is one hell of a fighter, So is Zappa - from what i see they have skill and abit of zap in there punch and can fight in close or from a distance.
The greatest Aus fighter for me (or for your sake good) was and will aways be Jeff Fenech - why? Because i grow up watching him fight on free to Air TV and in my eyes he was the best there is. I didn't need to judge him buy Skill, Technique, Footwork, Opposition etc etc etc as it didn't make a ounce of a difference, he was Entertainment and unbeatable (well for awhile).

When determining whether a fighter is "good", what factors do you look at? Is it a case on wins of credible opposition, an undefeated record, a high knockout percentage, perceived potential, hand speed, mobility, a solid chin, etc?

I think you like to read your own comments and challenge your knowledge or lack off against others? Do you have social issues?
Or does one have to answer your question to your standards? And what are your standard for a answer on what my perception is of a good Aus fighter? What i find as entertainment from a fighter you may find borring, Which should close this comment as boxing is about vaule for money/entertainment and without that you have nothing. No matter how maney people they have beaten/skill/chin/bla/bla/etc/bump.

Thanks for clarifying, but no need to get defensive.

People will always rate certain boxers differently and I’ve got no problem with that. For example one of your favourites, Leonardo Zappavigna, could be slated for being chinny, defensively flawed, and lacking any wins over credible opposition.

But there doesn’t seem to be much science behind your thought process beyond “he’s a fighter that I like and find entertaining”. I just don’t personally believe that this line of thinking is objective enough to determine whether a figther is “good”.

Hope I haven’t made this too complicated for you.