BoxRec

Which fighter had the best balance of overall skills?

Basing this off of things like Power,Speed,Stamina,Chin,Defense etc.

My vote goes to Marvin Hagler and in second comes a young Mike Tyson.

So are you just going to Tyson hate or are you going to name a fighter you think deserves it?

Joe Gans was said to be pretty awesome.

I watch Gans' fights with Nelson and Herman all the time, and he was damn skilled.

Floyd Mayweather might be the most skilled fighter of all-time.

Hagler is up there, too.

Greg Nicholas wrote:Joe Gans was said to be pretty awesome.

I watch Gans' fights with Nelson and Herman all the time, and he was damn skilled.

Floyd Mayweather might be the most skilled fighter of all-time.

Hagler is up there, too.

Mayweather doesn't have the power or chin.

Oh yeah,I forgot Larry Holmes, and of course Robinson makes it.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler, and to be honest, by quite a long way.

Who can honestly tell me someone who could do as many things as Hagler? Box or brawl, move or swarm, from either stance. Excellent technique, defense, footwork, power, speed, accuracy, stamina, wide variety of skills etc. etc...

Seriously - I challenge anyone to tell me something Hagler didn't do. Hell, he even used the cross arm defense when he needed to.

I'm talking about in his prime. So no watching the Leonard fight and trying to disprove me, Ringsider.

I agree with Hagler for sure, Robinson also. I have not seen any footage of him, but oldtimers say Benny Leonard was awesome at everything also.

Robinson's the first name that comes to mind, also Sugar Ray Leonard.

And Ali.

Seamus wrote:And Ali.

Ali?

If there's anything Ali wasn't, it was well-rounded.

Decagon wrote:

DoubleM wrote:Marvelous Marvin Hagler, and to be honest, by quite a long way.

Who can honestly tell me someone who could do as many things as Hagler? Box or brawl, move or swarm, from either stance. Excellent technique, defense, footwork, power, speed, accuracy, stamina, wide variety of skills etc. etc...

Seriously - I challenge anyone to tell me something Hagler didn't do. Hell, he even used the cross arm defense when he needed to.

Hagler could box, but I don't remember him ever getting on his bicycle, the way Ali or Robinson did. He didn't really have to, because he didn't ever fight someone 10 or 20 pounds heavier than he was. Robinson was incredible in that he could dance around the ring, but if you went toe-to-toe with him, he was just as deadly as Hagler.

Check out the Briscoe fight. Hagler showed some superb ringcraft there, with some slick moves and footwork. He only worked as hard as he had to, and stung Briscoe all night with the jab. He also boxed Mustafa Hamsho's ears off, and Vito Antuofermo's too. It's true what you say in that Hagler was never required to run from his opponents the way Ali did from Liston, but he could stand at range and fight on the back foot very effectively.

Decagon wrote:Tyson had horrible stamina, he had no defense of the clinch, he had a limited punching range, and he was as dumb as a pile of bricks on pot.

horrible stamina?



when in his prime did he ever show horrible stamina? he dominated the late rounds of tucker and boencrusher fights. he never showed any signs of slowing down in any of his 10 or 12 round fights.


you want to know a guy with horrible stamina? george foreman

if i had to choose the best all around fighters, its sugar ray robinson


others

joe gans
sam langford
marvin hagler

>>>Tyson had horrible stamina, he had no defense of the clinch, he had a limited punching range, and he was as dumb as a pile of bricks on pot.<<<

Do you think anyone will ever take you serious with these kinds of statements?

>>>Do you think anyone will take you serious when you say that Klondike was as solid as Larry Holmes?<<<

The difference is, I never said that Klondike was as solid as Holmes, that's just the desperation that you continue to try to hold on to...besides, do you think anyone who knows me really thinks that I would say that Klondike was as solid as Holmes? You just try to make up shit in your own little mind, hoping people will overlook your short-comings!

Decagon wrote:Tyson had horrible stamina, he had no defense of the clinch, he had a limited punching range, and he was as dumb as a pile of bricks on pot.

actually, what u just described is george foreman

Yeah, but you trying to turn that into something that I did not say, which I never said that Klondike, or Tate were as solid as Holmes...in fact I have said that there isn't a chance in hell that they are on Holmes' level...you're just reaching for nonsense and trying to make up shit because thats all you can do!

>>>After five pages of people lampooning you for this statement, and begrudgingly admitting that George Foreman, out of all of Norton's other opponents, was better than Haines and Tate, you deleted the thread.<<<

People lampooning me...that's really funny! You were the only person yapping on that thread and you were crying about me exposing you for being a liar who had no idea what he was talking about and you have not been able to let it go! You see, all you can do is try to make up shit and you look like an even bigger idiot doing it.

The best thing you could do, as I have suggested many times over, is let it go, move on and quit making such ridiculous and untrue statements about an era of boxing that everyone knows you have no clue about!

Oh you wish I had to deal with it...it kills you that I don't!

Ezzard Charles...

He could box going forwards and backwards, had lateral movement, good jab, fast hands and feet, terrific power at LH, excellent defence, great variety of punches. Charles was a gifted athlete who worked so hard at thye game that he was also a very very skilled practitioner. He had exceptional boxing fundamentals and is vey hard to beat from a purist standpoint

How about you guys open up your own thread just to bitch at each other on? :P


Sal Sanchez was pretty well rounded but i'll go along with Robinson and Hagler

I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson, had it all, skill, speed, power, intelligence.... best all round boxer of all time I think, ...others who come close would be Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ali, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Carlos Monzon, Salvadore Sanchez, Larry Holmes... I would never describe Tyson as well balanced, too easily frustrated even in his 'prime'.... it was this flaw that kept him from reaching his potiential greatness...

silkov wrote:I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson, had it all, skill, speed, power, intelligence.... best all round boxer of all time I think, ...others who come close would be Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ali, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Carlos Monzon, Salvadore Sanchez, Larry Holmes... I would never describe Tyson as well balanced, too easily frustrated even in his 'prime'.... it was this flaw that kept him from reaching his potiential greatness...

holmes and ali werent great enough punchers, monzon didnt have enough speed.


i would say the choices are guys who had great boxing skills, great punchers, great defense, great speed........


guys like


sugar ray robinson
joe gans
marvin hagler
roberto duran



tyson was very well balanced. not only did he have great defense and sound boxing skills, he was one of the greatest punchers of all time

Jose mantequila Napoles was pretty well balanced also.

Decagon wrote:Duran was a great fighter, but how good was he at fighting off the back foot?

Duran had excellent boxing abilities, he had a good jab and defence and a great boxing brain...