BoxRec

Who in your view was the best thinking man's fighter ever? These guys showed us that boxing like all sports, got something to do with using your brain and mentality. Some of us called them scientific fighters.

Some of the very best that used their minds:
Muhammad Ali
James J. Corbett
Gene Tunney
Benny Leonard
Sugar Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker\

Any others?

George Foreman was not as quick as these fighters, (on the other hand, not a one of these on your list is an exceptionally heavy hitter) But in his second go round, he was as scientific as they come. Usually we think of these fighters as quick and agile, but it's not a requirement IMHO.

Azumah Nelson seems a fit also.....Would Ricardo Lopez qualify?

BoxBuzz wrote:George Foreman was not as quick as these fighters, (on the other hand, not a one of these on your list is an exceptionally heavy hitter) But in his second go round, he was as scientific as they come. Usually we think of these fighters as quick and agile, but it's not a requirement IMHO.

As scientific as they come? Give me a break . . George was older and slower and so had to be more selective in his punch output, but his basic cross-armed defense and often wild swings and misses were not classic 'scientific boxing' in the slightest.

I think the whole line that Foreman in his 2nd career was a much better boxer is complete revisionist BS, backed up by the claims of the great salesman himself in George. I think this is partly b/c a) The most watched fight of George from the 70s is the Ali fight, which is by far his WORST fight in terms of him not using his skills/going all out for the one punch b) His greatest strength was his aggression coupled with his sheer physicality, and he didn't need to be an overly defensive/'scientific' boxer. But he did show decent skills; in his first career he was good at parrying and blocking shots with his gloves and arms, in many fights showed a superior jab to what he had in his 40s (just watch the Chuvalo fight), and also was great at setting up shots to the body, which just killed guys.
But Foreman at any age was never mr. Slick.

.....ezzard charles, joey maxim,harold johnson

Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Niccolino Loche, Tommy Ryan, Pernell Whittaker.

Carlos Monzon

Benitez

Archie Moore

Floyd Mayweather

Hopkins. Even with age, and decline of speed and agility, he still gets the job done. Can't see any making it to 47 with the career he has and still be active honestly.

Salvador Sanchez.

dempseyfire wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:George Foreman was not as quick as these fighters, (on the other hand, not a one of these on your list is an exceptionally heavy hitter) But in his second go round, he was as scientific as they come. Usually we think of these fighters as quick and agile, but it's not a requirement IMHO.

As scientific as they come? Give me a break . . George was older and slower and so had to be more selective in his punch output, but his basic cross-armed defense and often wild swings and misses were not classic 'scientific boxing' in the slightest.

I think the whole line that Foreman in his 2nd career was a much better boxer is complete revisionist BS, backed up by the claims of the great salesman himself in George. I think this is partly b/c a) The most watched fight of George from the 70s is the Ali fight, which is by far his WORST fight in terms of him not using his skills/going all out for the one punch b) His greatest strength was his aggression coupled with his sheer physicality, and he didn't need to be an overly defensive/'scientific' boxer. But he did show decent skills; in his first career he was good at parrying and blocking shots with his gloves and arms, in many fights showed a superior jab to what he had in his 40s (just watch the Chuvalo fight), and also was great at setting up shots to the body, which just killed guys.
But Foreman at any age was never mr. Slick.

Ok...I see where you are coming from.....we are embracing different definitions here. You are correct, he was not of the "sweet scientists" granted. However, he did a very "scientific assessment" of just his personal boxing forensics were, then using what he had learned, determined what HIS potentials were, and then proceeded to work a carefully laid out plan. So his boxing was not of top scientific caliber, but his strategy, and utilization of his "limited" skills toward "maximum outcome" was certainly scientific. And that personal "science" returned him to the HW championship. I find that to be a rather "scientfic" approach.

You do however, have the better half of this argument.

yancey wrote:Carlos Monzon

Great choice!

Also Nicolino Locche deserves to be mentioned

Perhaps a suprising choice, given his world championship prime was characterised by a free slugging aggression and recklessness.....but Lloyd Honeyghan on his way up was a consumate thinker and boxer....his one punch demolition of the bigger Gianfranco Rosi in front of a hostile crowd showed the ability of a pure boxer to stay calm and take out his man when he saw a mistake....ironically after he had been ruined by Starling and Breland...an older shot Honeyghan reverted back to the careful thinking boxer style of his youth and it showed when he stopped Mickey Hughes....again with one classy punch a left hook timed to perfection which shattered Hughes's nose.

Niccolino for sure..... what about Loi?

Good names mentioned so far,how about...

Julio Ceasar Chavez

Frankie Randall

Hector Camacho

Sugar Ray Robinson

Sugar Ray Leonard

Wlad Klischko

Jose Napoles

Willie Pep

Benny Leonard

Jack Britton

For me I would say

Wladimir K
Pernell Whittaker
Juan Manuel Marquez
Marco Antonio Barrera
Bernard Hopkins
Toshiaki Nishioka