The Most Balanced HW's
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 02:23
Joe Louis and Mike Tyson I don't care if Mike was useless after 6-8 round's 
I think this are the best balanced HW's
I think this are the best balanced HW'sBoxRec
The Most Balanced HW's
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 03:34
You're talking skill-wise right? Larry Holmes is probably the epitome of the balanced Heavyweight who relied on his all-around skills to trounce his opponents, he wasn't exceptionally fast nor a massive puncher but his overall skill is what kept him going. That fact is even evident in his losses as he lost to Spinks due to his speed, athleticism, and awkwardness and to Tyson for his incredible power and his skill also carried him into the 90's gaining him pretty close UD losses against a prime Holyfield and McCall when both were champs.
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 08:36
Agree with Holmes ,might add Lewis and of Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 10:07
Lewis and Tyson, balanced in different ways.
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 10:11
Tyson was incapible of fighting on the back foot.
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 10:12
although 9 out of 10 he never needed to. but point taken
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 12:49
What did he lack speed,power? I'd like to knowDecagon wrote:Mike Tyson was one of the least balanced of the top 15 heavyweights of all time.
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 13:20
Wouldn't a Sumo wrestler converted to HW boxer be the "most balanced" HW boxer? All the weight as low down on the body as humanly possible?
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 16:00
Not exceptionally fast? At his peak only Louis and Ali are up in Holmes's level in terms of handspeed. Watch the combination he fires off the ropes in the first round of the first Shavers fight. That is Roy Jones Jr-espque type stuff there. By the Spinks fight he was very much slowed down.Diamond WEAPON wrote:You're talking skill-wise right? Larry Holmes is probably the epitome of the balanced Heavyweight who relied on his all-around skills to trounce his opponents, he wasn't exceptionally fast nor a massive puncher but his overall skill is what kept him going. That fact is even evident in his losses as he lost to Spinks due to his speed, athleticism, and awkwardness and to Tyson for his incredible power and his skill also carried him into the 90's gaining him pretty close UD losses against a prime Holyfield and McCall when both were champs.
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 17:35
His chin was pretty good too. I'd say he lacked a decent jab, foot speed and mental toughness. Great hand speed, combos and power in his prime.Victor*KC wrote:What did he lack speed,power? I'd like to knowDecagon wrote:Mike Tyson was one of the least balanced of the top 15 heavyweights of all time.
Posted: 29 Jan 2007, 19:07
I dont know about that.. Tyson used a short rapier like jab to get inside of opponents and even outjabbed alot taller guys with it. I think he had very good foot speed going foward rather than laterally.His chin was pretty good too. I'd say he lacked a decent jab, foot speed and mental toughness. Great hand speed, combos and power in his prime.
As for the whole mental toughness knock on Tyson is vastly overrated. I cant think of a time Tysons mental toughness caused him to lose a fight in his prime. He showed fine mental toughness against Douglas, who just fought the perfect fight to defeat him that night. i dont think extra mental toughness would have made a difference. Same thing with his fight with Holyfield. the first fight he was just beaten by a better fighter. Period.
In the second fight he did snap, but i dont think that should reflect on his whole career.
Posted: 30 Jan 2007, 00:54
Tyson never used his jab to outbox his opponents he used it to set up his opponents.. this is one of the reasons he wasn't the same fighter anymore when he back from prison he didn't throw many jabs but they were effective instead he just looked for that 1 big shothebrew_hammer wrote:His chin was pretty good too. I'd say he lacked a decent jab, foot speed and mental toughness. Great hand speed, combos and power in his prime.Victor*KC wrote:What did he lack speed,power? I'd like to knowDecagon wrote:Mike Tyson was one of the least balanced of the top 15 heavyweights of all time.
Posted: 30 Jan 2007, 01:50
I still think calling him 1 of the worst balanced HW's of all time is a stretch..
Posted: 30 Jan 2007, 05:30
Totally agree. It took a while for people to realise he was very average on the inside because logically he should have been great there.Decagon wrote:Tyson had a great jab, but his most glaring weakness was only being effective in his wheelhouse. People thought that because Tyson was short, they could take him on the outside. His main weapon was the jab/uppercut-to-the-body/long-left-hook, and fighter after fighter tried to get away from that left hook, but ended up getting knocked out, instead. Only boxers with exceptional ranges were able to stay away from that left hook and still land shots. On the flip side, as Jeff Ryan put it, Tyson doesn't know shit about fighting on the inside."
When I think "great fighter," Ike Williams is one of the first names that pops into my mind. No heavyweight ever was as balanced as Williams at lightweight. He could box, he could slug, and if you wanted to try to maul him a la John Ruiz, he could tear you apart. Tyson was always open to maulers. He didn't have the clinch defense that George Foreman had, and throughout his career, from Green to Lewis, he never did anything to stop people from grabbing him. In the clinch, he was simply a very good fighter, not a great one.
Posted: 30 Jan 2007, 09:43
Tunney was a pretty balanced heavy.
Could box real good, decent power,could handle the rough stuff , decent chin.
Could box real good, decent power,could handle the rough stuff , decent chin.
Posted: 30 Jan 2007, 10:50
Greg Page was pretty balanced, could take a good shot, excellent boxing ability, but was weight-challenged and not motivated.When on, had great speed.
Posted: 30 Jan 2007, 14:54
