willie pep has to be the best defensive boxer of all time he once won a round without throwing a single punch lol.

willie pep has to be the best defensive boxer of all time he once won a round without throwing a single punch lol.

True... Pernell Whitaker is also a candidate

Prime Tyson was great in defense.

Prime Tyson was great in defense.

I Agree... But Tyson is not in the defensive class of Whitaker and Pep... He was VERY GOOD at slipping punches and dodging shots in his prime, but never truly GREAT

mayweather jr,whitaker,pep

I Agree... But Tyson is not in the defensive class of Whitaker and Pep... He was VERY GOOD at slipping punches and dodging shots in his prime, but never truly GREAT

Oh,well Whitaker,well ****,looks like Whitaker copied some of peps defensive moves.

wudnet say tyson was that gd at defense but he was alrite pep has to win it hands down i mean winning a round without throwing a punch lol ownage

wudnet say tyson was that gd at defense but he was alrite pep has to win it hands down i mean winning a round without throwing a punch lol ownage
I don't know if he was the absolute best, but Muhammad Ali was certainly one of the greats. What he did with George Foreman was a marvel.

I don't know if he was the absolute best, but Muhammad Ali was certainly one of the greats. What he did with George Foreman was a marvel.

Alot of ppl think the hits he took by Foreman are the ones that really ****ed his head up.Dont get it twisted,he was getting hit.He just took the shots.I wouldnt call that havnt great defense.

tyson's defense was awsome (which was bopping and moving around).

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sxJbEuaNgw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sxJbEuaNgw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

tyson's defense was awsome (which was bopping and moving around).

Where Im from bopping means giving head.:lol1:

Where Im from bopping means giving head.:lol1:wtf? you serious? :rofl: haha hell naw

wtf? you serious? :rofl: haha hell naw

If you gave head alot to alot of ppl then you're a bopper.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bopper

P4P I think Wright
HW I think Ali

In my opinion floyd mayweather jr, his defence is superb and he can also launch attacks from it as it makes you miss alot so he can counter you.

I don't know if he was the absolute best, but Muhammad Ali was certainly one of the greats. What he did with George Foreman was a marvel.

** That was a miraculous fight for Ali, but being Foreman's punching bag for 90% of the fight doesn't qualify as a defensive gem. Ali was a terrible defensive fighter in his comeback overall. Well documented in just about every bio published and any comeback fight you watch.

Pep probably fought more rounds than any fighter in history and was a top fighter for most of those rounds. Very little punishment until the Saddler fights. Nobody really approaches Pep's defensive mastery and offensive artistry although a good argument can be made for Robinson being the better overall fighter because of his power and competition.

Prime Tyson was great in defense.

Versi, Versi, Versi. Me and you have GOT to have a sit down over THIS one LOL!

Poet

gotta throw benny leonard in there somewhere

tyson was almost never defense but his aggressive defense was amazing!

roy jones is actually a very good defensove fighter he was jsut very un orthodox. how many big shots did he take in his prme?

in that vid tyson was gettin hit alot rofl so i dont think tysons defensive wasnt the best he took alot of shots.

Versi, Versi, Versi. Me and you have GOT to have a sit down over THIS one LOL!

Poet

Why is this? He rarely rarely got hit from 85-88. Who rarely gets hit for 3 years? Especially when his game was mid fighting vs. fighters with a longer reach and height on him?

tyson was almost never defense but his aggressive defense was amazing!

roy jones is actually a very good defensove fighter he was jsut very un orthodox. how many big shots did he take in his prme?

** Hemi finally makes some points I can agree with. When Tyson had his team together and was properly training he was probably the best defensive heavy ever, seldom hit cleanly and never dropped. Yeah, whacking out fighters in the first round sorta limits the punches you take.

Roy was just outstanding. Probably his worst fights for taking punishment were Tarver 1 and the Johnson fight where he was just brutalized, but both of those come at advanced age.

Also Tommy Loughran was extremely well regarded as a defensive whiz, a very careful boxer and strategist.

I would add in Ivan Calderon as one of this era's great defensive fighter. Like Tyson he uses aggressive offensive tactics that negate the other fighter's offense and is seldom hit cleanly even though most of his fights go the distance. He's also giving up a lot of height, strength and reach to these guys.

in that vid tyson was gettin hit alot rofl so i dont think tysons defensive wasnt the best he took alot of shots.

Considering Tyson was in the pocket of a fighter throwing fast flurries.I dont think he did all too bad.

I remember the Tillis fight with Tyson, it almost seemed like he was showing off his ducking skills ^^lol

Toney, Hopkins and floyd are all candidates. We have yet to really see these guys coming close to ever getting knocked out.

I wouldn't say Tyson had great defense but he was probably the most elusive heavyweight ever.

I wouldn't say Tyson had great defense but he was probably the most elusive heavyweight ever.

That sounds better.

tyson was almost never defense but his aggressive defense was amazing!

roy jones is actually a very good defensove fighter he was jsut very un orthodox. how many big shots did he take in his prme?
Tyson's defense was actually quite good in his prime he moved his head alot and was hard to hit. When he stopped moving his head he started gettin Ko'd i think it might be something to do with cus d'amato and his training.


Roy Jones was never a very good defensive boxer it was his reflexes, speed and unorthadox style that made him hard to hit, he has always looked vunerable but he was able to mask his flaws with his speed, power, reflexes etc.

Alot of ppl think the hits he took by Foreman are the ones that really ****ed his head up.Dont get it twisted,he was getting hit.He just took the shots.I wouldnt call that havnt great defense.
I think the consensus of opinion is that the 3 Frazier fights may have affected Ali. He took worse from Frazier than he did Foreman. Ali's defense against Foreman won that fight. It was great defense, period.

I think the consensus of opinion is that the 3 Frazier fights may have affected Ali. He took worse from Frazier than he did Foreman. Ali's defense against Foreman won that fight. It was great defense, period.

Maybe good,but great?

Ali's defense against Foreman won that fight. It was great defense, period.

** Ali was behind in the cards and out on his feet during the fight. He was Foreman's punching bag, and like any any punching bag he outlasted the puncher. Ali had sorry defense in his comeback no matter how you want to spin his many controversial victories. It's why he's in such a sorry state today.

roy jones jr was rather good defensivly up untill his later years i found. if i remember corectly he went an entire round without being hit? but for me overall i loved watching Sweet Pea

Why is this? He rarely rarely got hit from 85-88. Who rarely gets hit for 3 years? Especially when his game was mid fighting vs. fighters with a longer reach and height on him?

Because as his old trainers stated it was because his opponents where too busy moving in reverse trying not to get hurt to throw punches with any accuracy or force. The exact quote was "His offense was his defense". Pretty succinct. And a pretty damn good reason for Tyson not getting hit alot.

Poet

willie pep has to be the best defensive boxer of all time he once won a round without throwing a single punch lol.

That bout was against Jackie Graves, BUT it never happened. Read the story for yourself.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w0403-jw.html

ah thats jus speculation

ah thats jus speculation

Are you saying that Pep did win a round without throwing a punch?

Many years ago I did some research on this too. I looked at all the papers and articles that I could find on that bout, and none of them had Pep winning the round without throwing a punch. I would like to know how this story started.

boxing histrions and writers saw the fight and said he didnt throw a punch but people call it a legend tho cause it might not be true.

boxing histrions and writers saw the fight and said he didnt throw a punch but people call it a legend tho cause it might not be true.

I heard all the stories, BUT I have to go by the facts. With that said, Pep, who I met several times, was still one of the Greatest Ever.

Reggie Strickland.

Because as his old trainers stated it was because his opponents where too busy moving in reverse trying not to get hurt to throw punches with any accuracy or force. The exact quote was "His offense was his defense". Pretty succinct. And a pretty damn good reason for Tyson not getting hit alot.

Poet

They meant his offense is his defense is because when he slips punches(defense) he counters with a punch(offense) I tell ppl this all the time,that my offense is my defense.Because I fight simliar to Tyson,80s Tyson.

They meant his offense is his defense is because when he slips punches(defense) he counters with a punch(offense) I tell ppl this all the time,that my offense is my defense.Because I fight simliar to Tyson,80s Tyson.

That wasn't what the guy meant. When asked the question of Tyson being a great defensive fighter the guy laughed his head off and said Tyson NEVER was an outstanding defensive fighter and gave the quote from my previous post as an explanation. I believe the trainer in question was part of Kevin Rooney's team.

Poet

Tyson's defense was actually quite good in his prime he moved his head alot and was hard to hit. When he stopped moving his head he started gettin Ko'd i think it might be something to do with cus d'amato and his training.


Roy Jones was never a very good defensive boxer it was his reflexes, speed and unorthadox style that made him hard to hit, he has always looked vunerable but he was able to mask his flaws with his speed, power, reflexes etc.is

there was alot more skill to jones moves than it looks, it wasn't just his speed and reflexes that won him fights

he was a boxer who was great at evading punches; making an opponent throw a punch and miss
he was the first person to record a round on the compubox without being landed on once!
this to me makes him one of the best defensive boxer

That wasn't what the guy meant. When asked the question of Tyson being a great defensive fighter the guy laughed his head off and said Tyson NEVER was an outstanding defensive fighter and gave the quote from my previous post as an explanation. I believe the trainer in question was part of Kevin Rooney's team.

Poet

haha. Ive actually talked to one of Rooney's fighters and sparred him while in Catskills.Ive also emailed Kevin and talked to him on the phone. I beg to differ,but thats your opinion. I know what I know,no need to go on.

sUPRISE SUPRISE! Yet another Tyson thread! lol

He did slip punches and counter brilliantly, but he lost that wen he got older. He relied on pressure,his hand and foot speed, plus power, to overwhelm his opponents. Being short also made it difficult for opponents to land clean on him. A great defensive boxer he wasnt. He was a great offensive fighter. There is a big difference.

People like Pep and Whitaker didnt have the power to keep opponents off them, they had to rely on their movement and defensive skills. Whitaker could slip, block, duck, lean back, parry shots.

Ali hardly got hit in his prime, but that was mainly due to his style. He stayed at range, and used his fast hands and feet to out box his opponent.
Similar to Roy Jones. Yet he had great power also. When a fighter pressured him he would move straight back against the ropes, to me he wasnt great with pressure. Yet he would counter them off the ropes.
Look at Whitaker against Chavez. Thats how to deal with a non stop pressure fighter.

wilfred benitez

Henry Armstrong, not the best, but one of the top 10. Sounds crazy, I know. But offense is often times the best defense in boxing..

Henry Armstrong, not the best, but one of the top 10. Sounds crazy, I know. But offense is often times the best defense in boxing..

And THAT wasn't what question was. It was "best defensive boxer of all time" NOT "who's offense was so good he didn't have to give a **** about defense".

Poet

hey people keep it clean lol its about defense not offense i think tyson didnt have a gd defense well if he did it didnt last long and henrey didnt have a defense lol.

Toney, Ali, RJJ, Mayweather.

mayweather best defense of this era

Can't make up my mind but it's either one of these 3 IMO.

ALI
ROBINSON
JONES

wilfred benitezYes. He should not be forgotten for any list of defensive fighters, all-time. The Jr. Welter Benitez was barely touched.

why is noone mentioning pernall whitikar?

his head movement was so good he could stand in front of his opponents and still not get hit yet always be in position to hit back

Yes. He should not be forgotten for any list of defensive fighters, all-time. The Jr. Welter Benitez was barely touched.

he was indeed he is often forgotten because of the big 4 who were around when he was, they all beat him

willie pep has to be the best defensive boxer of all time he once won a round without throwing a single punch lol.

Has anybody ever seen this round???

Has anybody ever seen this round???


Read this:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w0403-jw.html

he was indeed he is often forgotten because of the big 4 who were around when he was, they all beat himTrue. The four were just a tad better in other departments of the game, i.e., power, etc....

And there was the matter of his reported drug habit...Ifv true...

True. The four were just a tad better in other departments of the game, i.e., power, etc....

And there was the matter of his reported drug habit...Ifv true...

The thing I always disliked about Benitez was his laziness/weight issues. It just seemed like he didn't really care. But when he was on top of his game he was great to watch.

The thing I always disliked about Benitez was his laziness/weight issues. It just seemed like he didn't really care. But when he was on top of his game he was great to watch.Genius sometimes makes a person lazy. Even geniuses are known to have bloated confidence in their already great capabilities.

Some have claimed that his weight issues were caused by his drug habit, although, I don't know that to be true.

Among the mental pictures I quickly have of Benitez each time he's mentioned is the way he stalked Maurice Hope around the ring in the final round, unleashed an overhand right, then smiled at the spectators as he dropped his hands to his sides while Hope crumbled to the canvass. He didn't even bother to look at Hope!

Read this:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w0403-jw.html

Bull****.

I wanna see it.

Bull****.

I wanna see it.


It's been 'debunked' according to newspaper accounts of the fight. Plus, there is no known footage of the bout.

Genius sometimes makes a person lazy. Even geniuses are known to have bloated confidence in their already great capabilities.

Some have claimed that his weight issues were caused by his drug habit, although, I don't know that to be true.

Among the mental pictures I quickly have of Benitez each time he's mentioned is the way he stalked Maurice Hope around the ring in the final round, unleashed an overhand right, then smiled at the spectators as he dropped his hands to his sides while Hope crumbled to the canvass. He didn't even bother to look at Hope!


Yeah man, and one can't help but picture those onesided losses to Moore and Hilton either. Both fighters he would beaten had he not let himself so totally go.

Yeah man, and one can't help but picture those onesided losses to Moore and Hilton either. Both fighters he would beaten had he not let himself so totally go.

Hawkins, are you quite new hear?

Hawkins, are you quite new hear?

Am I new here? I joined in October of this year. Why do you ask?

Yeah man, and one can't help but picture those onesided losses to Moore and Hilton either. Both fighters he would beaten had he not let himself so totally go.I'd much prefer the mental pictures of the great ones at their respective prime.

More than most human activities, sports demand payment in the arena for what sportsmen do outside of it. And, the toll sports collect is high-- even higher for those who are gifted.

You know what the Good Book says... something like, "...to whom much is given, much is expected." True in all facets of life, but truer still in sports, where one can be beaten not only by the foe but, sometimes, by one's self.

In addition there are circumstances outside of the sport that are beyond one's own control that also beat the sportsman.

That's why to me, the great ones are truly great. They did not only have to excel within the ambit of their sport, they have to deal with their own demons and then have to surmount obstacles placed before them by people, places and events inside and outside their sports.

Basically, I look at the International Boxing Hall of Fame in this light: it is as much a collection of stories of triumphs of the human spirit as it is a tribute to genius. But, with that said, I hastily add that it is also a showcase of how genius can achieve much even if a fighter has been unfair to his gifts-- as in the case of Benitez and some others.

Sports heroes are demi-gods. The "demi-" is there to distinguish them ffrom "God" or "gods". They, expectedly, are flawed. But they are in the pantheon because they achieved things that people like me can only marvel at.

I'd much prefer the mental pictures of the great ones at their respective prime.

More than most human activities, sports demand payment in the arena for what sportsmen do outside of it. And, the toll sports collect is high-- even higher for those who are gifted.

You know what the Good Book says... something like, "...to whom much is given, much is expected." True in all facets of life, but truer still in sports, where one can be beaten not only by the foe but, sometimes, by one's self.

In addition there are circumstances outside of the sport that are beyond one's own control that also beat the sportsman.

Well in that aspect when something comes so naturally to someone to that point that its almost effortless I'm sure it would be all to easy to take it for granted.

I think this is the case of Benitez. He was so good for the short time he was at his best he took it all for granted and let it all go to waste by his actions that didn't pertain to boxing.

That's why to me, the great ones are truly great. They did not only have to excel within the ambit of their sport, they have to deal with their own demons and then have to surmount obstacles placed before them by people, places and events inside and outside their sports.

Basically, I look at the International Boxing Hall of Fame in this light: it is as much a collection of stories of triumphs of the human spirit as it is a tribute to genius. But, with that said, I hastily add that it is also a showcase of how genius can achieve much even if a fighter has been unfair to his gifts-- as in the case of Benitez and some others.

Sports heroes are demi-gods. The "demi-" is there to distinguish them ffrom "God" or "gods". They, expectedly, are flawed. But they are in the pantheon because they achieved things that people like me can only marvel at.



Make no mistake, I wasn't knocking Benitez. But when you picture his greatest triumphs some of those horrific defeats follow. As thrilling as the victories were the crushing defeats were just as much, but on the other side of the spectrum.

I try not to judge fighters on what they do outside of boxing, but when it effects them within the constrains of the sport then you have no choice. The great ones are great because of their victories and defeats, moreso the reaction to defeat. Some use it as a supreme motivator others as an excuse.

I think thats where true greatness is reflected.

Bull****.

I wanna see it.


There is no known tape of that bout, all I am showing you is the newspaper article that shows it never happened.

This was suppose to take place in the 3rd round, BUT here's what the newspapers stated:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/w0303article1.jpg

sweet pea, pep.

Well in that aspect when something comes so naturally to someone to that point that its almost effortless I'm sure it would be all to easy to take it for granted.

I think this is the case of Benitez. He was so good for the short time he was at his best he took it all for granted and let it all go to waste by his actions that didn't pertain to boxing.





Make no mistake, I wasn't knocking Benitez. But when you picture his greatest triumphs some of those horrific defeats follow. As thrilling as the victories were the crushing defeats were just as much, but on the other side of the spectrum.

I try not to judge fighters on what they do outside of boxing, but when it effects them within the constrains of the sport then you have no choice. The great ones are great because of their victories and defeats, moreso the reaction to defeat. Some use it as a supreme motivator others as an excuse.

I think thats where true greatness is reflected.I didn't think you were knocking Benitez. I just thought we have different preferences on mental pictures of him. You'd rather think first of his losses, I'd rather think first of who he was at his best.

I do the same for Ali and other greats. I acknowledge Ali's last fights but they are not going to be my first mental pictures if Ali's name is mentioned.

So, you'd rather recall the Moore fight alongside what I mentioned as my first mental picture (the Hope KO). That's your choice.

You speak of reactions to defeat as motivation for some and an excuse for others. A quick look at Benitez's record will show us that following his first loss (to no less than Leonard by 15th round TKO), he raced through three fighters with a cumulative record of 121-11. Then, he took a shot at his third world title in three weight classes and faced Hope. That's not exactly a fighter looking for an excuse.

He successfully defended the title he won from Hope twice and beat a Roberto Duran in the process. That was the Duran who beat Davey Moore and Pipino Cuevas a year later, and went the distance before losing to Hagler four years later. I can't see that such a series of events warrants a negative take on how badly Benitez took the loss to Leonard.

Benitez lost his title to Hearns. It was by MD-- it cannot by any stretch be referred to as a "crushing defeat". And it was the Hearns who less than two years later KO'd Duran and then 7 years later held Leonard to a draw in Vegas.

By the late 80's Benitez may have been young by ordinary standards, but one must remember that he is the youngest man to win a world crown at the age of 17. And, on top of his having fought the best, he had to deal with his demons.

His personal demons may have gotten in the way of his accomplishing more than he did. But what he actually accomplished-- both in losing and winning against the great ones--makes him deserve a better mental picture in my mind than his defeat to Davey Moore and others whom he faced at close to the end of his career.

I didn't think you were knocking Benitez. I just thought we have different preferences on mental pictures of him. You'd rather think first of his losses, I'd rather think first of who he was at his best.

I do the same for Ali and other greats. I acknowledge Ali's last fights but they are not going to be my first mental pictures if Ali's name is mentioned.

So, you'd rather recall the Moore fight alongside what I mentioned as my first mental picture (the Hope KO). That's your choice.

You totally misunderstood what I meant by that. I meant that sometimes its hard to remember the triumphs without also remembering the defeats. Not that I define, Benitez by the crushing losses to Moore and Hilton, rather it reminds me how much better he could have been had his head been totally in the game.

You speak of reactions to defeat as motivation for some and an excuse for others. A quick look at Benitez's record will show us that following his first loss (to no less than Leonard by 15th round TKO), he raced through three fighters with a cumulative record of 121-11. Then, he took a shot at his third world title in three weight classes and faced Hope. That's not exactly a fighter looking for an excuse.

He successfully defended the title he won from Hope twice and beat a Roberto Duran in the process. That was the Duran who beat Davey Moore and Pipino Cuevas a year later, and went the distance before losing to Hagler four years later. I can't see that such a series of events warrants a negative take on how badly Benitez took the loss to Leonard.

Benitez lost his title to Hearns. It was by MD. And it was the Hearns who less than two years later KO'd Duran and then 7 years later held Leonard to a draw in Vegas.

Benitez may have had his personal demons that got in the way of his accomplishing more than he did. But what he actually accomplished-- both in losing and winning against the great ones--makes him deserve a better mental picture in my mind than his defeat to Davey Moore.

I wasn't lumping Benitez into that per say, rather I was painting a broader picture of the sport as a whole. Too many times fighters sink even further after a loss instead of using it as a motivator. I didn't mean for it to pertain to Benitez.

Benitez is an all-time great for a reason, I would never say otherwise. I was just using our conversation as an effort to make a wider generalization.

You totally misunderstood what I meant by that. I meant that sometimes its hard to remember the triumphs without also remembering the defeats. Not that I define, Benitez by the crushing losses to Moore and Hilton, rather it reminds me how much better he could have been had his head been totally in the game.



I wasn't lumping Benitez into that per say, rather I was painting a broader picture of the sport as a whole. Too many times fighters sink even further after a loss instead of using it as a motivator. I didn't mean for it to pertain to Benitez.

Benitez is an all-time great for a reason, I would never say otherwise. I was just using our conversation as an effort to make a wider generalization.Your statements gave the wrong impression, at least, to me.

I manage to remember the great Benitez (winning and losing against the great ones) and cursorily nod at what you refer to as his "crushing defeats" because of my awareness that those defeats came near the end of his storied career. Call me selective...

Yes, the "could have been". I mentioned in an earlier post that the Hall of Fame is full of stories of "what could have beens." I said, the great ones did not have only to deal with their foes in the arena, they had their demons, and people- places-and-events that affect their careers and personal lives. Some careers were severely affected by circumstances way beyond the fighters' control. World War II, for example.

Anyhow, I still wonder why you decided to paint a broader picture of how badly fighters take losses when the conversation was about Benitez and by no means can Benitez's name provoke the painting with such broad strokes. Different strokes for diffeent folks, I guess.

Your statements gave the wrong impression, at least, to me.

I manage to remember the great Benitez (winning and losing against the great ones) and cursorily nod at what you refer to as his "crushing defeats" because of my awareness that those defeats came near the end of his storied career. Call me selective...

Yes, the "could have been". I mentioned in an earlier post that the Hall of Fame is full of stories of "what could have beens." I said, the great ones did not have only to deal with their foes in the arena, they had their demons, and people- places-and-events that affect their careers and personal lives. Some careers were severely affected by circumstances way beyond the fighters' control. World War II, for example.

Anyhow, I still wonder why you decided to paint a broader picture of how badly fighters take losses when the conversation was about Benitez and by no means can Benitez's name provoke the painting with such broad strokes. Different strokes for diffeent folks, I guess.


Well you'll have to forgive me for taking the conversation into a sideways slant. Wasn't mean to obscure the origin of the debate. I'm in the middle of a storm of In-Law family so I'm rather distracted. Anyhow...

My original intent was meant to mean that Benitez could have achieved much more than he did. Does that mean his accomplishments mean any less? No. However I still think his career had yet to reach a true ceiling when it was derailed. Furthermore, had he not been distracted by his various vices (whatever they may have been) his career wouldn't have ended like it did. He wasn't even 30 years old when Matthew Hilton drove the proverbial last nail in the coffin of his career, so it should be argued that he had a few years left had he did things differently.

Like I said earlier, it's hard for me to picture his greatest triumphs without also seeing those terrible defeats. Why? Because there was so much more he could have accomplished but his career came to screeching halt because of his choices outside of the boxing ring.

Well you'll have to forgive me for taking the conversation into a sideways slant. Wasn't mean to obscure the origin of the debate. I'm in the middle of a storm of In-Law family so I'm rather distracted. Anyhow...

My original intent was meant to mean that Benitez could have achieved much more than he did. Does that mean his accomplishments mean any less? No. However I still think his career had yet to reach a true ceiling when it was derailed. Furthermore, had he not been distracted by his various vices (whatever they may have been) his career wouldn't have ended like it did. He wasn't even 30 years old when Matthew Hilton drove the proverbial last nail in the coffin of his career, so it should be argued that he had a few years left had he did things differently.

Like I said earlier, it's hard for me to picture his greatest triumphs without also seeing those terrible defeats. Why? Because there was so much more he could have accomplished but his career came to screeching halt because of his choices outside of the boxing ring.Mother In-law issues? Oh, well... we fellas have to go through those...

But I've forgotten about mine. My wife's mom passed away 20 or so years ago.

Benitez debuted in 73. By the time he faced Hilton he had already spent 13 years fighting 55 fights (lost 4) facing such heavy-hitters as Hearns, Duran,Palomino...an offensive, unrelenting offensive machine and durable foe (his defeats were mostly because of cuts he suffered) named Mustaffa Hamsho...gruelling bouts with Bruce Curry (2x), Antonio Cervantes, Pete Ranzany...

He also had several 15-round world championship fights that went the full route or close to the full distance (Ref Padilla stopped his fight against Leonard with mere seconds remaining till the final bell, for example.)

In addition, he was not one known to have taken good care of himself...
When Benitez faced Hilton, he was an old 28 or 29 year old very tired veteran.

Many fighters hit their peak at that age. Benitez started hitting his at 17 when he became the youngest fighter ever to win a world crown-- a feat not yet matched-- forget about it having been ecclipsed.

As for, "what he could have achieved," I think my all my posts are clear statements that I am of the opinion shared by a vast majority of fight fans of all ages. What I cannot comprehend is why the "what could have been" should diminish the "what came to be" in the early to middle part of his career. If anything, it should add luster to his name.

Neither could I understand why defeats when he was already on the backslope of his career should tarnish the accomplishments when he was at his prime or near-prime. To me those accomplishments shine by and of themselves. Those were not easy. He was heroic even in his losses to fellow greats.

Mother In-law issues? Oh, well... we fellas have to go through those...

But I've forgotten about mine. My wife's mom passed away 20 or so years ago.

Benitez debuted in 73. By the time he faced Hilton he had already spent 13 years fighting 55 fights (lost 4) facing such heavy-hitters as Hearns, Duran,Palomino...an offensive, unrelenting offensive machine and durable foe (his defeats were mostly because of cuts he suffered) named Mustaffa Hamsho...gruelling bouts with Bruce Curry (2x), Antonio Cervantes, Pete Ranzany...

He also had several 15-round world championship fights that went the full route or close to the full distance (Ref Padilla stopped his fight against Leonard with mere seconds remaining till the final bell, for example.)

In addition, he was not one known to have taken good care of himself...
When Benitez faced Hilton, he was an old 28 or 29 year old very tired veteran.

Many fighters hit their peak at that age. Benitez started hitting his at 17 when he became the youngest fighter ever to win a world crown-- a feat not yet matched-- forget about it having been ecclipsed.

As for, "what he could have achieved," I think my all my posts are clear statements that I am of the opinion shared by a vast majority of fight fans of all ages. What I cannot comprehend is why the "what could have been" should diminish the "what came to be" in the early to middle part of his career. If anything, it should add luster to his name.

Neither could I understand why defeats when he was already on the backslope of his career should tarnish the accomplishments when he was at his prime or near-prime. To me those accomplishments shine by and of themselves. Those were not easy. He was heroic even in his losses to fellow greats.



Again, I think you totally misinterpret the point I was making. In no way was it meant as a detriment to El Radar nor was meant to degrade his accomplishments.

The only point I was trying, but obviously failed, to make was that as great as he was he could have been greater had he maintained his external focus. We all know the rumors that swirled around as early as the Hearns the fight and all the things that were whispered afterward.

Anyway, I can't help but think had his problems not been as prevalent as they were his career would have reached even great heights. It's not an insult toward what he did acheive rather the reality of what could have been.

Again, I think you totally misinterpret the point I was making. In no way was it meant as a detriment to El Radar nor was meant to degrade his accomplishments.

The only point I was trying, but obviously failed, to make was that as great as he was he could have been greater had he maintained his external focus. We all know the rumors that swirled around as early as the Hearns the fight and all the things that were whispered afterward.

Anyway, I can't help but think had his problems not been as prevalent as they were his career would have reached even great heights. It's not an insult toward what he did acheive rather the reality of what could have been.I think you've made your point. I think it is I who did not.

You said you cannot think of Benitez's accomplishments without thinking of his defeats. That was clear in your earlier posts and it continues to be clear in the more recent ones. I could not have missed that.

That is the statement I addressed. I said, I cannot comprehend why if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, one should focus sufficiently on his later defeats... enough to call them "devastating" and to remember them-- at the very least-- alongside his victories. It is my belief that if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, then, one should take that as an added luster to his name and not one that is a reminder of his "devastating" losses.

If one believes that had Benitez taken care of himself he could have done more, why delve on Hilton and not talk about the fellas he could have faced and beaten? It's a "what could have been" proposition, after all.

Okay. So Hilton serves to underscore how Benitez wasted his talents. But, should that point be belabored? I guess it's common enough knowledge.

Anyhow, I said very early in this exchange of ideas, that I do not begrudge your tendency to stack up Benitez's accomplishments against his losses. I clearly stated that "it's your choice." I also said, we have "different preferences" in remembering Benitez.

I am now left wondering why you insist that I don't get what you mean when it all it seems is that you do not get what I have clearly said.

Oh...the mother in law issues.... okay.

I think you've made your point. I think it is I who did not.

You said you cannot think of Benitez's accomplishments without thinking of his defeats. That was clear in your earlier posts and it continues to be clear in the more recent ones. I could not have missed that.

That is the statement I addressed. I said, I cannot comprehend why if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, one should focus sufficiently on his later defeats... enough to call them "devastating" and to remember them-- at the very least-- alongside his victories. It is my belief that if one believes that Benitez could have achieved more, then, one should take that as an added luster to his name and not one that is a reminder of his "devastating" losses.

I understand your viewpoint my friend however you think I focus on his defeats and that simply is not the case. I think when one thinks of athletes who achieved much at an early age and burned out very young often bring forth the question of what else could have been.

I was a great fan of his, and it wasn't until later, when I put everything together that I wondered that how much greater might he have been? He could have very easily attained the status of someone such as Ray Robinson because he was that talented.

As for being devestating losses, they were. Matthew Hilton was a good fighter but to see someone of Radar's caliber fall at his feet is an undeserving end.

If one believes that had Benitez taken care of himself he could have done more, why delve on Hilton and not talk about the fellas he could have faced and beaten? It's a "what could have been" proposition, after all.

Okay. So Hilton serves to underscore how Benitez wasted his talents. But, should that point be belabored? I guess it's common enough knowledge.

Anyhow, I said very early in this exchange of ideas, that I do not begrudge your tendency to stack up Benitez's accomplishments against his losses. I clearly stated that "it's your choice." I also said, we have "different preferences" in remembering Benitez.

I am now left wondering why you insist that I don't get what you mean when it all it seems is that you do not get what I have clearly said.

Oh...the mother in law issues.... okay.

But see that is where we are conflicting. I don't think he wasted his talent, after all he achieved a great deal, but that doesn't stop the underlying theme that alot more was indeed within his grasp.

Just imagine, if there were no problems like he had rumored to have had, and he had defeated Leonard and Hearns. His name would be lifted into the pantheon of fighters such as Ali and Robinson. That doesn't distract from anything he did do but it is realistic in imagining.

I understand your viewpoint my friend however you think I focus on his defeats and that simply is not the case. I think when one thinks of athletes who achieved much at an early age and burned very young often bring forth the question of what else could have been.

I was a great fan of his, and it wasn't until later, when I put everything together that I wondered that how much greater might he have been? He could have very easily attained the status of someone such as Ray Robinson because he was that talented.

As for being devestating losses, they were. Matthew Hilton was a good fighter but to see someone of Radar's caliber fall at his feet is an deserving end.



But see that is where we are conflicting. I don't think he wasted his talent, after all he achieved a great deal, but that doesn't stop the underlying theme that alot more was indeed within his grasp.

Just imagine, if their were no problems like he had rumored to have had, and he had defeated Leonard and Hearns. His name would be lifted into the pantheon of fighters such as Ali and Robinson. That doesn't distract from anything he did do but it is realistic in imagining.I do not think that you are in conflict with me alone. It can be that you are in conflict with yourself.

You said you do not think he wasted his talent, and yet in the very next breath you mentioned rumors of his problems. And this is not the only occassion you illustrated that he wasted his talents. Check your previous posts.

Anyway, just to be clear as to where you're coming from: what was it, then, that made him fail to achieve the things that you said were in his grasp? Lack of talent? If so, why talk about the problems when he did not have what it took anyway?

If you think, he had an attitude problem which made him less committed to his sport, then did he not squander (or "waste") his talent?

If, the rumor you refer to is that he had a drug habit, wasn't that wasting his talent?

You said you do not focus on his defeats. But you took three posts to underscore them. Why? That even after I already said you can have your choice and that we have different preferences in remembering Benitez. Why? That even after I provided details that there is more reason to remember Benitez more fondly than through his defeats in the hands of Moore and Hilton. Why?

We agree on several things and we have been around the block many times on that. We say Benitez is among those often mentioned during "what could have been" discussions. Both of us say "amen" to that.

But you come back several times saying you remember Benitez as a great one and then say YOU CANNOT REMEMBER him WITHOUT REMEMBERING his "devastating defeats!" So, okay, I told you, it's your choice. I repeated that in TWO POSTS. I just added the comment that if you think Benitez that great why keep on harping about not being able to remember him without recalling his defeats? Fairness? Okay. But why didn't you say so? Instead, you just kept on repeating the same thing.

I asked why talk about Hilton and not the "what could have beens"? Because...?

On second thought, I think, now, that I do not get what you mean. That cannot be a surprise to me now because you don't seem to either.

So, by me saying I think he could have been greater than he was it implies wasted talent? I don't see it that way. Cannot someone still be considered great but have unreached potential?

I don't think that by pointing out the fact I think he could achieved more is implying he wasted his talent. When I think of wasted talent I think of someone like Lee Oma or Ricardo Williams. Someone who had the talent, yet squandered it completely.

Benitez is not an example of wasted talent. He was a great fighter. World champion who attained a deserved place in the history of the sport. When I say he was indeed great on one hand but on the other hand he could have been greater still, you take it as me saying he wasted his talent and thats no the case.

I think you can spotlight someones greatness ,while asserting further greatness could have been attained, without putting into the catergory of wasted talent.

So, by me saying I think he could have been greater than he was it implies wasted talent? I don't see it that way. Cannot someone still be considered great but have unreached potential?

I don't think that by pointing out the fact I think he could achieved more is implying he wasted his talent. When I think of wasted talent I think of someone like Lee Oma or Ricardo Williams. Someone who had the talent, yet squandered it completely.

Benitez is not an example of wasted talent. He was a great fighter. World champion who attained a deserved place in the history of the sport. When I say he was indeed great on one hand but on the other hand he could have been greater still, you take it as me saying he wasted his talent and thats no the case.

I think you can spotlight someones greatness ,while asserting further greatness could have been attained, without putting into the catergory of wasted talent.No. Your tendency to take slants and sidesteps are showing up again. You will recall having owned up to having done that in this and other threads.

I did not say that it was implicit in your statement that Benitez was a wasted talent because he did not achieve what he was capable of-- although some people may take it that way. If one is a capable of achieving something and does not go out to achieve it, then the talent is wasted. That's clear. It is still clear even if Benitez got to where he was in spite of having done what he did outside the ring. At the very least, he wasted SOME of the talents. A waste no less.

But it is not what this response is all about. It is about my having asked you a series of questions and quoted your post then made the relevant passages in your post bold letters, to which you failed to specifically respond.

In previous posts you variously referred to problems of his as "prevalent", and referred to his bad "choices outside the ring". These are a few of the many that should be added to the "rumored problems" you referred to in the post that I quoted in my reply immediately preceeding this one. So I asked you, what were those problems?

Were those drugs? Attitude? If these were, did these not constitute a "wasting of talent"?

You did not address these questions and instead chose not to quote my post in your reply. Why? You've been quoting my posts all throughout this thread until then. Why stop? It is not as if you are not better than me in using the quote button. Your previous posts that contain multiple quotes are evidence of your skill. While I struggle to get around this site, techno-idiot that I am.

Be that as it may, I think it is best for purposes of clarity of our respective positions that you be responsive and not slant or sidestep the very points of contention that you yourself serve up.

Or, you can again refer to your issues with your mother in law.

Been reading 3 pages of this thread and boy they are long responses from both sides so let's take a break and watch this devastating KO by Benitez over Hope.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNvSfmtTeDA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNvSfmtTeDA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Been reading 3 pages of this thread and boy they are long responses from both sides so let's take a break and watch this devastating KO by Benitez over Hope.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Heya there ol' pal!

Break? Fine with me! Long time coming!

Good thing you got that clip! It's the mental picture of Benitez that I referred to in one of my earliest posts in this thread.

Thanks!

No. Your tendency to take slants and sidesteps are showing up again. You will recall having owned up to having done that in this and other threads.

I did not say that it was implicit in your statement that Benitez was a wasted talent because he did not achieve what he was capable of-- although some people may take it that way. If one is a capable of achieving something and does not go out to achieve it, then the talent is wasted. That's clear.

But it is not what this response is all about. It is about my having asked you a series of questions and quoted your post then made the relevant passages in your post bold letters, to which you failed to specifically respond.

In previous posts you variously referred to problems of his as "prevalent", and referred to his bad "choices outside the ring". These are a few of the many that should be added to the "rumored problems" you referred to in the post that I quoted in my reply immediately preceeding this one. So I asked you, what were those problems?

Were those drugs? Attitude? If these were, did these not constitute a "wasting of talent"?

You'll have to forgive me. I get on here as a means of relaxation and to debate my favorite sport but my mind is not solely on the conversation at hand.

Anyway, the things that have been said about Benitez were his drug habits, his laziness in the gym, his lack of overall desire and an inability to get up from the dinner table. There are all things that have been leveled against him within his career.

Yes, you could look at it from a standpoint of wasted talent however I don't think it applies in this case because of his well stated accomplishments. I see the phrases of 'wasted talent' and 'not reaching a full potential' as two distinctly different things.



You did not address these questions and instead chose not to quote my post in your reply. Why? You've been quoting my posts all throughout this thread until then. Why stop? It is not as if you are not better than me in using the quote button. Your previous posts that contain multiple quotes are evidence of your skill. While I struggle to get around this site, techno-idiot that I am.

Be that as it may, I think it is best for purposes of clarity of our respective positions that you be responsive and not slant or sidestep the very points of contention that you yourself serve up.

That lack of quotations is attributed to having to change a diaper, no insult to you in any way.

You'll have to forgive me. I get on here as a means of relaxation and to debate my favorite sport but my mind is not solely on the conversation at hand.

Anyway, the things that have been said about Benitez were his drug habits, his laziness in the gym, his lack of overall desire and an inability to get up from the dinner table. There are all things that have been leveled against him within his career.

Yes, you could look at it from a standpoint of wasted talent however I don't think it applies in this case because of his well stated accomplishments. I see the phrases of 'wasted talent' and 'not reaching a full potential' as two distinctly different things.





That lack of quotations is attributed to having to change a diaper, no insult to you in any way.

A good number will raise questions about your making distinctions about "wasted talent" and "not reaching full potential", but I shan't make myself one of them. Not because I agree with that distinction. It's a choice I can make and am making.

I too go on this site to relax and keep in touch with old e-friends such as kadyo (the one who called out the break in the earlier post), chups, papa ace, thrilla, suckapunch, runw/knives, yogi (I haven't seen him posting lately) and many others. I've been here some years, although there were months when I just took peeks at posts and news bulletins and did not post. That accounts for my relatively small posts record.

I am not pretty adept at anything techno-- poor should be my rating. But, for someone of my age and available time for this sort of thing, I think, I'll rate myself fair. Shameless, ain't I?

Anyhow, good talking to ya. Take good care of the baby; that's a precious one. My wife and I don't have any after 31 years of marriage.

Edit: I just noticed that the second quotation has the name, "them_apples". That's strange... I could have sworn I was the one quoted.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Heya there ol' pal!

Break? Fine with me! Long time coming!

Good thing you got that clip! It's the mental picture of Benitez that I referred to in one of my earliest posts in this thread.

Thanks!hehehe I know it's the mental picture you are referring to and I remember it like yesterday and I remember the manner he just stood up there with full macho bragadoccio not bothering to follow up. I also remember wilfredo being interviewed after the fight about that punch and he responded in choppy english " yeah, with that punch, he cannot stand" .

hehehe I know it's the mental picture you are referring to and I remember it like yesterday and I remember the manner he just stood up there with full macho bragadoccio not bothering to follow up. I also remember wilfredo being interviewed after the fight about that punch and he responded in choppy english " yeah, with that punch, he cannot stand" .Yeah, buddy. The punch was jaw-dropping (not only for Hope but to spectators as well) enough, the effect more so. But Benitez's demeanor was one of a kind!

Well... if it's not one of a kind, it's the only one I have seen.

A good number will raise questions about your making distinctions about "wasted talent" and "not reaching full potential", but I shan't make myself one of them. Not because I agree with that distinction. It's a choice I can make and am making.

I too go on this site to relax and keep in touch with old e-friends such as kadyo (the one who called out the break in the earlier post), chups, papa ace, thrilla, suckapunch, runw/knives, yogi (I haven't seen him posting lately) and many others. I've been here some years, although there were months when I just took peeks at posts and news bulletins and did not post. That accounts for my relatively small posts record.

I am not pretty adept at anything techno-- poor should be my rating. But, for someone of my age and available time for this sort of thing, I think, I'll rate myself fair. Shameless, ain't I?

Anyhow, good talking to ya. Take good care of the baby; that's a precious one. My wife and I don't have any after 31 years of marriage.

Edit: I just noticed that the second quotation has the name, "them_apples". That's strange... I could have sworn I was the one quoted.

To be quite fair sleep has been a rare commodity as of late which probably explains my lack of brain power this morning, but thats life. Usually I'm fairly sharp (hows that for shameless? :) ) lol

Well I'm new to the site. But it was good to talk with you. In my experience the vast number of people on these sites are unable to debate without resorting to name calling and using 'colorful metaphors'.

Thanks for the well wishes.

PS I fixed the quotation. Total airhead move on my part.

Yeah, buddy. The punch was jaw-dropping (not only for Hope but to spectators as well) enough, the effect more so. But Benitez's demeanor was one of a kind!

Well... if it's not one of a kind, it's the only one I have seen.One of a kind indeed. Of lesser comparison is the way gatti danced away after delivering that vicious left to the body against leija.

To be quite fair sleep has been a rare commodity as of late which probably explains my lack of brain power this morning, but thats life. Usually I'm fairly sharp (hows that for shameless? :) ) lol

Well I'm new to the site. But it was good to talk with you. In my experience the vast number of people on these sites are unable to debate without resorting to name calling and using 'colorful metaphors'.

Thanks for the well wishes.

PS I fixed the quotation. Total airhead move on my part.I rated myself fair and you have just reminded me I don't go that high. I don't know how to fix anything on the net or anywhere/anything that has anything to do with it!

As for the denizens of BoxingScene, you should get to meet Yogi and several veterans (sad most of them do not seem to post much anymore.) Those fellas know what they're talking about and I haven't read anything in their posts that can be said as ones of the "color" one finds in the posts of others. Runw/Knives, chups, papa ace, kadyo and suckapunch can be scathing though, but only when sorely provoked. (Don't get on my face, now buddies!)

Don't know much yet about the new members.

See ya around...

One of a kind indeed. Of lesser comparison is the way gatti danced away after delivering that vicious left to the body against leija.Oh, yea! That Gatti dance... Ha! Ha! Ha! That was something!

I rated myself fair and you have just reminded me I don't go that high. I don't know how to fix anything on the net or anywhere/anything that has anything to do with it!

As for the denizens of BoxingScene, you should get to meet Yogi and several veterans (sad most of them do not seem to post much anymore.) Those fellas know what they're talking about and I haven't read anything in their posts that can be said as ones of the "color" one finds in the posts of others. Runw/Knives, chups, papa ace, kadyo and suckapunch can be scathing though, but only when sorely provoked. (Don't get on my face, now buddies!)

Don't know much yet about the new members.

See ya around...Only against turds and twats whose names I won't mention hahahaha!!!!

Only against turds and twats whose names I won't mention hahahaha!!!!Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Thanks for the K's pal! Tried sending some to you but was told I have to spread more around! Too bad...

I'll get on it as soon as they let me.

Tucan McGinty is often considered the best defensive fighter of all time

I've got to go with "Sweet Pea" Whitaker on this one. He arguably went a couple of years in his prime without losing a round.

floyd mayweather junior. no question he is the greatest boxer that ever pulled on a pair of gloves.

floyd mayweather junior. no question he is the greatest boxer that ever pulled on a pair of gloves.

Not seen alot of boxing have you?

Not seen alot of boxing have you?

how can you repute his offensive skills coupled with his remarkable defensive skills that is the reason he has never been knocked down by a punch.

how can you repute his offensive skills coupled with his remarkable defensive skills that is the reason he has never been knocked down by a punch.

So you rank Floyd ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson or Ali? Ahead of Willie Pep?

So you rank Floyd ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson or Ali? Ahead of Willie Pep?

yes i do with ease because he is so hard to hit cleanly and his ability to counter with such quick hands makes his defence perfect in my eyes.

yes i do with ease because he is so hard to hit cleanly and his ability to counter with such quick hands makes his defence perfect in my eyes.

Dude, you really need to look at some old fight footage before making statements like this. Floyd's a badass, but you need to see the genius of guys like Robinson, Ali, Whitaker, and Pep to appreciate them.

Golden Schlong

yes i do with ease because he is so hard to hit cleanly and his ability to counter with such quick hands makes his defence perfect in my eyes.

ROFL.:ugh: :ugh: :nonono: :nonono:

Golden Schlong

:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:
here too huh?:lol1:

floyd's defense is on par with benitez,no way in hell he's better then pep,or whitaker,period.****ing 15 year old nuthuggers i swear.

floyd's defense is on par with benitez,no way in hell he's better then pep,or whitaker,period.****ing 15 year old nuthuggers i swear.

Hell, Michael Nunn had better defence than Floyd.

:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:
here too huh?:lol1:



My real answer is Pep.

Wilfredo Benitez
Willie Pep
Pernell Whitaker
Floyd Mayweather
Nicolino Locche
Prime Roy Jones Jr
Prime Mike Tyson

Prime Tyson was great in defense.:lol1: best there was

Hell, Michael Nunn had better defence than Floyd.

No he doesn't i wouldn't say Mayweather is the best but he is certainly up there Oscar De La Hoya only landed 21 percent of his punches against Mayweather not many fighters could do that.

No he doesn't i wouldn't say Mayweather is the best but he is certainly up there Oscar De La Hoya only landed 21 percent of his punches against Mayweather not many fighters could do that.

Michael Nunn at middleweight. Anyway Corey Spinks only landed about 15% of his punches vs Jermaine Taylor, does that make Taylor a defensive genius? I think Pavlik would disagree.

Michael Nunn at middleweight. Anyway Corey Spinks only landed about 15% of his punches vs Jermaine Taylor, does that make Taylor a defensive genius? I think Pavlik would disagree.
There is a huge difference between Spinks and Pavlik offensively you nerd!!!! LOL

Here's my list in no particular order:

James Toney - Master of Philly Shell defence. Slips punches with Zen like awareness.

Pernell Whittaker - His defence is one of a kind. Freak!

Winky Wright - One of the tightest defences going round.

Willie Pep - Won a round without even throwing a punch by wooing judges with brilliant defence.

Jack Johnson - Could pick out in-coming flack in the air while placing his blows at the same time. Very natural defence.

Jack Dempsey - His aggression was his protection and the inventor and master of the 'bob and weave' followed by thunderous rights and lefts.

There is a huge difference between Spinks and Pavlik offensively you nerd!!!! LOL

Gee, you think? :smashfrea Making a point about punch landing percentages, smart guy.:wtf1:

Going deep through time: Young Griffo (1869-1927) should, at least, be one of the top five. It was said that Griffo was able to avoid punches while standing on a handkerchief, without taking a step whichever way out of the hanky. He lost a controversial decision to Hall of Famer Jack McAullif, who barely touched him in all of the ten round fight. He arrived in many of his fights drunk, but often managed to win because his foes didn't get to him at all.

More recent past: Nicolino Locche, aka, "The Untouchable," should not be overlooked.

Gee, you think? :smashfrea Making a point about punch landing percentages, smart guy.:wtf1:
You play too much into the stats young man.LOL there's actually this one thing called "styles" in boxing, but you'll really have to learn a lot to read those.LOL

You play too much into the stats young man.LOL there's actually this one thing called "styles" in boxing, but you'll really have to learn a lot to read those.LOL

Funny how a bum named Buster Douglas had the "style" to beat a prime Mike Tyson.:banana:

Funny how a bum named Buster Douglas had the "style" to beat a prime Mike Tyson.:banana:
It had nothing to do with styles that night. You'll have to learn even more to read into that.LOL

It had nothing to do with styles that night. You'll have to learn even more to read into that.LOL

:hijacked:

:cop: This is a no Tyson zone. Move along, nothing to see here. :cop:

I couldn't help it. I was baited.LOL

I couldn't help it. I was baited.LOL


Use your maturity and intelligence to resist such things grasshopper.:killyou:

Going deep through time: Young Griffo (1869-1927) should, at least, be one of the top five. It was said that Griffo was able to avoid punches while standing on a handkerchief, without taking a step whichever way out of the hanky. He lost a controversial decision to Hall of Famer Jack McAullif, who barely touched him in all of the ten round fight. He arrived in many of his fights drunk, but often managed to win because his foes didn't get to him at all.

More recent past: Nicolino Locche, aka, "The Untouchable," should not be overlooked.

Yeah Locche was pretty damn impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEKHMUCh8k
sorry I don't know how to put vids on here yet.

Yeah Locche was pretty damn impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEKHMUCh8k
sorry I don't know how to put vids on here yet.Heya there gavinz...

Yeah, Locche was something. Lost only 4 out of 135 fights. Uncanny reflexes. Registered wins over HOF fighters like Joe Brown and Antonio Cervantes. Held two other HOFers to draws: Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz.

Locche had two careers; he staged a come-back some three years after he retired following his second meeting with Cervantes. He won all 7 of his comeback fights but decided to retire again.

Although he knocked down Carlos Hernandez in his successful defense of his WBA LightWelter title, he was featherfisted. He stopped only 14 of his opponents in 117 wins. He was kd'd by Hernandez too, but he rose without allowing the ref to start a count.

He died a little over two years ago, just days after his 66th birthday.

I too don't know how to embed (is that the right term?) video on these pages. :o :)

Heya there gavinz...

Yeah, Locche was something. Lost only 4 out of 135 fights. Uncanny reflexes. Registered wins over HOF fighters like Joe Brown and Antonio Cervantes. Held two other HOFers to draws: Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz.

Locche had two careers; he staged a come-back some three years after he retired following his second meeting with Cervantes. He won all 7 of his comeback fights but decided to retire again.

Although he knocked down Carlos Hernandez in his successful defense of his WBA LightWelter title, he was featherfisted. He stopped only 14 of his opponents in 117 wins. He was kd'd by Hernandez too, but he rose without allowing the ref to start a count.

He died a little over two years ago, just days after his 66th birthday.

I too don't know how to embed (is that the right term?) video on these pages. :o :)

Yeah, I didn't realize there were any old school fighters that fought like that, makes me wonder how many more recent fighters copied elements from his style.

Yeah, I didn't realize there were any old school fighters that fought like that, makes me wonder how many more recent fighters copied elements from his style.Locche had most of his fights in his home country--Argentina. As far as I know, he went to Japan only once (to wrest the WBA title from a Japanese fighter) and another time to Panama (where he lost the title by UD to the Panamanian, Alfonso Frazer).

Given the state of the art of video recording in the late '60s up to the mid-70's (virtually non-existent except in celluloid and those huge aluminum reels wound full of tapes that were inches wide), I dunno that many of today's fighters have seen him. I am sure though that most of the leading trainers have. So, it is not really difficult to believe that some of the latter may have adopted what they saw of Locche in their training regimen for their wards, both present and those in the immediate past. Just the same, training can only do so much. Locche had what I believe was inborn radar. Truly uncanny.

Though a hero in his native Argentina, Locche's talents did not get their due even among the boxing experts in the US who constitute the majority of those who choose inductees to the Hall of Fame in Canastota. Locche was voted into the Hall in 2003-- four years after Kaosai Galaxy of Thailand and three years after Ken Buchanan (who, as a lightweight, fought in about the same era as Locche).

To think that Galaxy was only about 8 years old when Locche held Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz to draws and 12 years old or so when Locche became WBA champ.

pernell whitaker has to be the best defensive boxer of all time but there are other contenders such as ali, willie pep,robinson,lamotta, mayweather jr

pernell whitaker has to be the best defensive boxer of all time but there are other contenders such as ali, willie pep,robinson,lamotta, mayweather jr

Welcome to BoxingScene, fortune100.

Just curious... How is it that you think of the Raging Bull as among the best defensive fighters of all time?

Welcome to BoxingScene, fortune100.

Just curious... How is it that you think of the Raging Bull as among the best defensive fighters of all time?

To quote a line from Cinderella Man, "Did you see many punches getting past his face?"

To quote a line from Cinderella Man, "Did you see many punches getting past his face?"Hi gavinz...LOL!

pep, whitaker and locche.

why in the hell is jake lamotta mentioned in this thread?!?

This guy


<------------

As far as the boxers I have seen, Whitaker and Leonard were pretty good.

True... Pernell Whitaker is also a candidate
yep sweat pea gets my vote

As far as the boxers I have seen, Whitaker and Leonard were pretty good.

Leonard wasn't really that great defensively. I mean he was good, very good, but I can think of a lot of fighters who were much better. He had great ring movement which kept him from being hit and amazing speed which enabled him to hit and then get out of harms way quick enough that the other guy wasn't able to hit him. In terms of pure defense though, there were quite a few guys who were better. Whittaker, Loche, Benitez who he fought, also Duran was better defensively, who he fought also of course. Toney, Nunn (who styled himself after Leonard but had much greater defense), Hopkins...It was more his ring movement combined with his offensive speed which kept him from being hit much rather than his actual in the pocket defense which is more what this is about I think.

Edit: That reminds me. I haven't seen Duran mentioned here yet I think. The guy was a defensive master. Wasn't as obvious as someone like Whittaker or Mayweather because he was so much more offensive minded but when you take that into consideration he was a genius. When he stood back and tried not to get hit he was impossible to hit cleanly, if at all. As shown in the Duran/Leonard fight when he was trying to mock Leonard (who was one of the most accurate punchers ever) he would stand back and duck, slip, weave and dodge and Leonard would miss every single punch. Actually up until that point he was very rarely hit cleanly in any fight I've seen unless he was crazed and just storming in without bothering about defense. He had one of the greatest slip and counter punches ever and his head movement was brilliant. I would say he is the best defensive fighter that had an offensive, inside style of fighting ever.

Leonard wasn't really that great defensively. I mean he was good, very good, but I can think of a lot of fighters who were much better. He had great ring movement which kept him from being hit and amazing speed which enabled him to hit and then get out of harms way quick enough that the other guy wasn't able to hit him. In terms of pure defense though, there were quite a few guys who were better. Whittaker, Loche, Benitez who he fought, also Duran was better defensively, who he fought also of course. Toney, Nunn (who styled himself after Leonard but had much greater defense), Hopkins...It was more his ring movement combined with his offensive speed which kept him from being hit much rather than his actual in the pocket defense which is more what this is about I think.

Edit: That reminds me. I haven't seen Duran mentioned here yet I think. The guy was a defensive master. Wasn't as obvious as someone like Whittaker or Mayweather because he was so much more offensive minded but when you take that into consideration he was a genius. When he stood back and tried not to get hit he was impossible to hit cleanly, if at all. As shown in the Duran/Leonard fight when he was trying to mock Leonard (who was one of the most accurate punchers ever) he would stand back and duck, slip, weave and dodge and Leonard would miss every single punch. Actually up until that point he was very rarely hit cleanly in any fight I've seen unless he was crazed and just storming in without bothering about defense. He had one of the greatest slip and counter punches ever and his head movement was brilliant. I would say he is the best defensive fighter that had an offensive, inside style of fighting ever.

yeh i agree with what u saying and some boxers get there defense just from being so fast and elusive e.g. roy jones before he slowed down.

pep, whitaker and locche.

why in the hell is jake lamotta mentioned in this thread?!?

Definitely! The Bronx Bull is widely credited as having the best chin in Boxing history, but that doesn't mean he was a hitting bag. He was a very elusive fighter in his hey-day! Deserves a mention.

wudnet say tyson was that gd at defense but he was alrite pep has to win it hands down i mean winning a round without throwing a punch lol ownage

Winky has a pretty awesome defence.

This is a silly question its obviously Pep.

Pep was the best of all time
he taught ali all he knew

greatest defensive fighter would be mayweather
he so good he ducks fighters completely out of the ring - lol

Pep was the best of all time
he taught ali all he knew

Ali fought absolutely NOTHING like Pep, and Ali wasn't exactly a great defensive fighter if you actually watched him. But I wouldn't expect you to know that, as you've never watched either of them and are just repeating what you've heard to act knowledgable.

Ali fought absolutely NOTHING like Pep, and Ali wasn't exactly a great defensive fighter if you actually watched him. But I wouldn't expect you to know that, as you've never watched either of them and are just repeating what you've heard to act knowledgable.

Nicolino Locche!

Nicolino Locche!

Very good, yes, but I wouldn't say there's enough footage to tell for sure. As far as pure defense though, you may have a case.

I have seen his rematch with Cervantes, have you seen their first fight, or is it even on film?

Very good, yes, but I wouldn't say there's enough footage to tell for sure. As far as pure defense though, you may have a case.

I have seen his rematch with Cervantes, have you seen their first fight, or is it even on film?

1st fight is on youtube i believe.

IMO


1. Sweet Pea ( Just so hard to hit and i rank him 1st but only slightly ahead of Pep )
2. Pep ( If the whole " Winning a round without throwing a punch" is fact and not made up Bull**** then he deserves a very high place )
3. Floyd Mayweather ( Incrediby accurate counter puncher his Defense launches his offense which is extremely Underrated IMO )
4. Wright ( Not much mention of him here but certainly an Excellent defensive Fighter
5. RJJ ( Not so much for defense but his Reflexes and speed were the best i have ever seen and that was what he used for his defense )


Honourable Mentions

Ali
Tyson
Duran ( Not mentioned much on this thread and to the person in an earlier post who described him as a Defensive master i Agree he was known Offensively but he was great defensively also )


Not seen any footage of this Nicolino Locche so i decided not to include him in my list

1st fight is on youtube i believe.That's the second fight. Looks very good there, but actually lost the fight.

IMO


1. Sweet Pea ( Just so hard to hit and i rank him 1st but only slightly ahead of Pep )
2. Pep ( If the whole " Winning a round without throwing a punch" is fact and not made up Bull**** then he deserves a very high place )
3. Floyd Mayweather ( Incrediby accurate counter puncher his Defense launches his offense which is extremely Underrated IMO )
4. Wright ( Not much mention of him here but certainly an Excellent defensive Fighter
5. RJJ ( Not so much for defense but his Reflexes and speed were the best i have ever seen and that was what he used for his defense )


Honourable Mentions

Ali
Tyson
Duran ( Not mentioned much on this thread and to the person in an earlier post who described him as a Defensive master i Agree he was known Offensively but he was great defensively also )


Not seen any footage of this Nicolino Locche so i decided not to include him in my list

Wright's a good addition. I think you could also include Hopkins based on his later fights. I have to disagree with you on Tyson (I think his defense has been grossly overrated, I base this partly on testimony of his former trainers), however picking Duran shows true boxing knowledge: Roberto's defense was subtle and not many fans picked up on it. Good call!

Poet

Wright's a good addition. I think you could also include Hopkins based on his later fights. I have to disagree with you on Tyson (I think his defense has been grossly overrated, I base this partly on testimony of his former trainers), however picking Duran shows true boxing knowledge: Roberto's defense was subtle and not many fans picked up on it. Good call!

PoetLOL, I think you quoted the wrong guy by mistake.

LOL, I think you quoted the wrong guy by mistake.

I do believe you are correct Sir! Not sure how that happend LOL!

Poet

tyson's defense was awsome (which was bopping and moving around).

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sxJbEuaNgw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sxJbEuaNgw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

wow this is ...roy jones esq

wow this is ...roy jones esq

Let's not go overboard, their styles were completely different. Roy was no bob and weaver. He also did get tagged quite a bit in that clip.

For the person who said Ali was not a good defensive fighter I have to ask: What are you basing this on? The past it Ali who laid on the ropes in the 70s? In his prime years he was practically unhittable. He was known to drop his hands down to his sides and just move his upper body and fighters, good fighters, couldn't hit him. A lot of people have said he did everything "wrong" in terms of fighting technique but his speed and reflexes made it work for him. Roy Jones could be criticized for the same thing but, for him as well, it worked. Until his reflexes slowed and he could no longer pull it off. The difference between Ali and Roy is that Ali adapted and changed his style when is reflexes started to go; Roy didn't and got KOed twice trying to fight his old style while lacking the reflexes to do it.

Poet

willie pep was the best
followed by sugar ray robinson

willie pep was the best
followed by sugar ray robinsonRobinson was not a defensive boxer at all you twat.

And Poet, Ali was far from unhittable, though he did have good defense, just overrated on the defensive side.

He was prone to a good left hook, and aside from great reflexes, his technique on the defensive side was less than satisfactory. He was tagged a lot, but also showed enough highlight reel defensive moves to cover for it.

Some vid's of defensive boxers:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEKHMUCh8k
Nicolino Locche

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD5rx0OdyDA
Pernell Whitaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZROK-t5Pmo
Another underrated defensive artist, never let a punch go past his face

Ali copied his style from Sugar Ray Robinson

Ali copied his style from Sugar Ray Robinson

His footwork yes, but other than that they fought nothing alike.

everybody knows that !! - roe

Tyson's defense was good, in that video he was touched but not tagged, all of those punches slipped off causing no damage give our take 1 or 2.

Naseem Hamed great defense tactician with those un-human-like reflexes

Hamed was only good cos he fought tomato cans
oonce he fought a real boxer his defence was
shown to be weak ...

pep was the best

Robinson was not a defensive boxer at all you twat.

And Poet, Ali was far from unhittable, though he did have good defense, just overrated on the defensive side.

He was prone to a good left hook, and aside from great reflexes, his technique on the defensive side was less than satisfactory. He was tagged a lot, but also showed enough highlight reel defensive moves to cover for it.

No question Ali's technique was wrong: Everyone one said he did EVERYTHING wrong but made it work for him. I think it's fair to point out we're talking over-all defense not mearly technique. Ali's speed and reflexes WERE his defense and enabled him to fight without good technique. Roy Jones is another example of this he did the same as Ali: Bad technique but using speed and reflexes to avoid getting hit. The difference between the two was that Ali adapted his style of fighting when his speed and reflexes started to slip and Jones did not. The result was Ali won two more titles past his prime and Jones got brutally KOed twice.

Personally I feel Willie Pep was the best defensive fighter ever but their are sufficient candiates to make it a hard call. Pernell Whitaker certainly makes the short list and so does Chris Byrd. Ali and Jones make despite their less than perfect technique. James Corbett was known for his defensive prowness as was Gene Tunney at Light-Heavyweight. Ray Leonard could play defense with the best of them when he wanted to and Wilfred Benitez was a defensive master. Honors go to Roberto Duran who was vastly underrated defensively at Lightweight. And no, Mike Tyson doesn't make the list. It's almost impossible to hit an opponent when you are moving backwards and most of Tyson's opponents were moving in reverse. Watch the Tyson fights where the opponent DOESN'T fight going backwards and see how often Mike gets hit then. Tyson's OFFENSE essentially WAS his defense.

Poet

No question Ali's technique was wrong: And no, Mike Tyson doesn't make the list. It's almost impossible to hit an opponent when you are moving backwards and most of Tyson's opponents were moving in reverse. Watch the Tyson fights where the opponent DOESN'T fight going backwards and see how often Mike gets hit then. Tyson's OFFENSE essentially WAS his defense.

Poet

:nonono:

Since I know you still read my posts by accidentally quoting me in another thread...Tyson's opponent didn't look like he was going backwards in the video posted in this very thread. Tyson was a fine defensive fighter and very difficult to hit when making his moves inside.

:nonono:

Since I know you still read my posts by accidentally quoting me in another thread...Tyson's opponent didn't look like he was going backwards in the video posted in this very thread. Tyson was a fine defensive fighter and very difficult to hit when making his moves inside.

I agree tyson was tough to hit because of his size and style but it was more like reflexes and speed that made it tough to hit him when he slowed down he got hit alot more.

I agree tyson was tough to hit because of his size and style but it was more like reflexes and speed that made it tough to hit him when he slowed down he got hit alot more.

I have a hot news flash for Ol' Chunder Lips: I DO still have him on ignore, however when other posters quote his non-sense in THEIR posts then I end up seeing it. Ignore doesn't wipe out quotes, only the original posts. As usual he is clueless as to how things on this forum work, just as he is clueless about anything going on in a boxing ring.

Poet

I agree tyson was tough to hit because of his size and style but it was more like reflexes and speed that made it tough to hit him when he slowed down he got hit alot more.


Tyson stopped doing many things in the later rounds consistently. I was just pointing out to the pathetic Poet character that can't refrain from reading and quoting my posts or anyone else that listens to his biased bull**** that there was more to Tyson's defense than his opponents just running out of fear of being hit. In the early rounds at least, Tyson could be very hard to find and it wasn't just because of speed or reflexes either; he kept his hands up and moved very purposefully.

tyson was good at slippin. gotta get one of them slip bags

It's hard to call Tyson one of the best defensive boxer's of all time because he was so inconsistent with his defense even in his prime.

Also when he got older he became one of the WORST defensive fighters of all time because he realized he could take a punch.

The Willie Pep story is a legend and has been proved to be false. Regardless, Pep is probably top three defenders of all-time. I throw Mayweather and Whitaker in the mix.

Never seen Willie Pep, and not very schooled on older fighters (as in, older than 1990), so...

Elusivity - Whitaker
Blocking - Wright
Mix of the two - Mayweather Jr.

Sound good? At least for best of the 90s/2000s?

At heavyweight IMO it is Jack Johnson. Even at over 40 he was a nightmare to try and hit. P4P, maybe Joe Gans.:fing02:

for me its pernell wink and floyd... but defensive master, has to be floyd... it just has to be

for me its pernell wink and floyd... but defensive master, has to be floyd... it just has to be

Your boy Jones wasn't half bad at defense either.

He really never got hit much until he got KTFO by Tarver/Johnson.

Floyd might get the nod over those two just because he can elude and block very well, not just one or the other.

Never seen Willie Pep, and not very schooled on older fighters (as in, older than 1990), so...

Elusivity - Whitaker
Blocking - Wright
Mix of the two - Mayweather Jr.

Sound good? At least for best of the 90s/2000s?

Whittaker should get the nod, period. He had a better mix of the two things than Floyd, too.

Never seen Willie Pep, and not very schooled on older fighters (as in, older than 1990), so...

Elusivity - Whitaker
Blocking - Wright
Mix of the two - Mayweather Jr.

Sound good? At least for best of the 90s/2000s?

Man, if you like those guys you gotta check out some of the older guys. For someone similar to Whittaker you have a Noccolino Locche who was just a freak! Seriously, I guarantee you'll dig him :biggthump Pep of course was truly amazing, though the ol' tale of him winning a round against Graves without throwing a punch is complete bull**** (as much for the fact that NO ONE could win against Graves without throwing one punch). That fight was actually a war which makes the tale that much more baffling! God knows where that tale came from...?

As for the best of the nineties I think there is just a few that you've missed out on. James Toney is the obvious one who was easily as good as Mayweather, if not better, and is actually where Mayweather got a lot of moves from (supposedly). There were also a number of guys who were just as amazing like Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Hopkins etc. There are many others that I can't be bothered thinking of at the moment lol The only thing these guys didn't have that Mayweather did, apart from Hopkins, was the mental discipline and comparatively easy opponents.

Whittaker was a little bit more than just an elusive defensive genius. He just used that more than blocking because it made opponents look stupid and was more humiliating when they would swing wildly and miss every shot. If you see him standing in though he was as good as Wright in that department. Amazing natural talent.

Whittaker should get the nod, period. He had a better mix of the two things than Floyd, too.

Yes, he was better than Floyd , much more natural talent, but I still think Locche was easily as good as Whitaker. They were very similar in their talents and methods. Very mocking, good at humiliating an opponent and entertaining a crowd. They could also both stand in and use glove defense with the absolute best of them.

Never heard of Locce until you mentioned him, but I found this video on him and its extremely impressive.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3LEKHMUCh8k&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3LEKHMUCh8k&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Man, if you like those guys you gotta check out some of the older guys. For someone similar to Whittaker you have a Noccolino Locche who was just a freak! Seriously, I guarantee you'll dig him :biggthump Pep of course was truly amazing, though the ol' tale of him winning a round against Graves without throwing a punch is complete bull**** (as much for the fact that NO ONE could win against Graves without throwing one punch). That fight was actually a war which makes the tale that much more baffling! God knows where that tale came from...?

As for the best of the nineties I think there is just a few that you've missed out on. James Toney is the obvious one who was easily as good as Mayweather, if not better, and is actually where Mayweather got a lot of moves from (supposedly). There were also a number of guys who were just as amazing like Herol Graham, Michael Nunn, Hopkins etc. There are many others that I can't be bothered thinking of at the moment lol The only thing these guys didn't have that Mayweather did, apart from Hopkins, was the mental discipline and comparatively easy opponents.

Whittaker was a little bit more than just an elusive defensive genius. He just used that more than blocking because it made opponents look stupid and was more humiliating when they would swing wildly and miss every shot. If you see him standing in though he was as good as Wright in that department. Amazing natural talent.

I'll definately admit to not knowing a ton about Sweet Pea. I have only seen one of his fights in full (Chavez) and the end of Hurtado, along with assorted clips from the Ramirez fight.

By the way, I don't think Mayweather took his moves from Toney, he got them from his daddy, who used the shoulder roll quite a bit in his career.

I'll definately admit to not knowing a ton about Sweet Pea. I have only seen one of his fights in full (Chavez) and the end of Hurtado, along with assorted clips from the Ramirez fight.

By the way, I don't think Mayweather took his moves from Toney, he got them from his daddy, who used the shoulder roll quite a bit in his career.

oh god. Now he's a historian. lol lol

I'll definately admit to not knowing a ton about Sweet Pea. I have only seen one of his fights in full (Chavez) and the end of Hurtado, along with assorted clips from the Ramirez fight.

By the way, I don't think Mayweather took his moves from Toney, he got them from his daddy, who used the shoulder roll quite a bit in his career.Well, have a look.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Yes, he was better than Floyd , much more natural talent, but I still think Locche was easily as good as Whitaker. They were very similar in their talents and methods. Very mocking, good at humiliating an opponent and entertaining a crowd. They could also both stand in and use glove defense with the absolute best of them.

Locche is definitely up there... He made Kid Pambele look like a stiff at times. Of all time, though? I'd pick Radar Benitez. So good at defense that it sometimes cost him fights... lol.

On the best of the 90's subject... I'd probably pick Herol Graham over James Toney.

Well, have a look.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

As highlight videos often do... that made me say, "how the **** did that guy ever lose a fight?"

Jesus, I also remember seeing that one part where he made De La Hoya miss about 10 straight times at the end of the round, and then he played like he was stunned when the round was over.

Good ****!

oh god. Now he's a historian. lol lol

lol lol thanks for the great addition to the discussion lol lol

Don't you have someone else that hurt your feelings on here that you could be following around?

1. Willie pep.....here's why
Willie Pep won about 225 professional fights, losing only 11. The fact that he fought until 44 while remaining such a defensive fighter so consistently outdoes anybody IMO. And he never got brain damage! Muhammad Ali had great defense, but took way too many shots, like against Foreman and Frazier. Robinson is certainly up there, but also wasn't as pure a boxer as Pep. Floyd is an alltime P4p defensive fighter too.

Locche is definitely up there... He made Kid Pambele look like a stiff at times. Of all time, though? I'd pick Radar Benitez. So good at defense that it sometimes cost him fights... lol.

On the best of the 90's subject... I'd probably pick Herol Graham over James Toney.

Yes, he was truly incredible! One of my favourites. Not only with that amazing performance over Antonio 'Kid Pembele' Cervantes but also over HOF greats Joe Brown, Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz! Thats a hell of a resume! The only problem is when he came back from his first title loss just before retiring and was beaten via TKO by Cervantes. He was done by this stage though so...

lol at Benitez! Man, he was such a good fighter at times. His performance against Duran was by far his greatest with Duran on the slide after his loss to Leonard and especially that they both despised each other. Duran did look pretty awful though in it. He was gassed by the tenth round! T'was sad seeing him like that especially when you consider that he used to go fifteen rounds at full crazy pace like a motherf^&*&r! He is definitely up there with the greatest as well speaking of him.

Yeah, I can't decide on the Graham vs Toney. Toney fought better fighters even though he got a few draws, they were against stellar opposition and it was when he was quite inactive during fights due to his lack of energy from weight drain at Middle. Whereas Graham also fought great fighters he was knocked horribly cold in one of the worst KO's I've ever seen! But then again, if Jackson cracked anyone they were gone for the count! He was also giving Jackson such a schooling at the time, it was sad. I really wish he had won that fight because he was never given his dues after it.

Dwiens, as far as I know Floyd and Toney did a fair bit of sparring together when he was young and thats why I said he got a lot from him but yes, he also picked up that from his dad. Just developed it further in sparring with him. Unfortunately his dad never used it that well in his fights! lol

That was a fantastic clip of Whittaker Sweet Pete (did you make that?). God he was a freak!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fHl3FLPrUE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fHl3FLPrUE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Two of the best defensive fighters I've ever seen.

As highlight videos often do... that made me say, "how the **** did that guy ever lose a fight?"

Jesus, I also remember seeing that one part where he made De La Hoya miss about 10 straight times at the end of the round, and then he played like he was stunned when the round was over.

Good ****!

Well, he didn't truly lose a fight until he was old and past his prime, and coked out against Trinidad.

His loss to Ramirez was in fact a near shutout victory for Pernell, one of the worst robberies in the history of the sport, only to be matched by his draw against Chavez, which anyone will tell you was at least an 8-4 victory for Pernell. The fight with De La Hoya was close, but Pea threw more, landed more, landed at a higher percentage, dropped DLH, and made him miss so bad he looked foolish at times. I had Pea by two points.

Only when a 35 year old shot, coke head version of Pea faced a prime, much bigger Tito Trinidad did he truly lose, and was even able to give a good fight in that one, opting to trade and fight rather than box, as he had lost most of his ability by then.

Yes, he was truly incredible! One of my favourites. Not only with that amazing performance over Antonio 'Kid Pembele' Cervantes but also over HOF greats Joe Brown, Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz! Thats a hell of a resume! The only problem is when he came back from his first title loss just before retiring and was beaten via TKO by Cervantes. He was done by this stage though so...

lol at Benitez! Man, he was such a good fighter at times. His performance against Duran was by far his greatest with Duran on the slide after his loss to Leonard and especially that they both despised each other. Duran did look pretty awful though in it. He was gassed by the tenth round! T'was sad seeing him like that especially when you consider that he used to go fifteen rounds at full crazy pace like a motherf^&*&r! He is definitely up there with the greatest as well speaking of him.

Yeah, I can't decide on the Graham vs Toney. Toney fought better fighters even though he got a few draws, they were against stellar opposition and it was when he was quite inactive during fights due to his lack of energy from weight drain at Middle. Whereas Graham also fought great fighters he was knocked horribly cold in one of the worst KO's I've ever seen! But then again, if Jackson cracked anyone they were gone for the count! He was also giving Jackson such a schooling at the time, it was sad. I really wish he had won that fight because he was never given his dues after it.

Dwiens, as far as I know Floyd and Toney did a fair bit of sparring together when he was young and thats why I said he got a lot from him but yes, he also picked up that from his dad. Just developed it further in sparring with him. Unfortunately his dad never used it that well in his fights! lol

That was a fantastic clip of Whittaker Sweet Pete (did you make that?). God he was a freak!

Benitez is the greatest defensive fighter, IMO. I see a video up there of Pernell ducking shots and making guys look foolish.. Benitez was doing that and (dare I say it?) a little better. He gave Leonard fits. He spanked Duran.. and what made it more incredible was that he stood right in front of you. Not the Toney-esque, hands-up approach. But arms low, shoulders down. And you still could rarely catch him clean.

I agree with you about Duran. He was very subtle with his defense. It didn't really catch your eye because he was always coming forward- but it was definitely there.

Herol Graham had the better knack for defense than did Toney.. he also was unfocused and could rely heavily on his great reflexes. And yes- it cost him against Jackson. Toney is a more complete fighter, but if you want to look solely at defense, Bomber Graham is the better man.

Yes, he was truly incredible! One of my favourites. Not only with that amazing performance over Antonio 'Kid Pembele' Cervantes but also over HOF greats Joe Brown, Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz! Thats a hell of a resume! The only problem is when he came back from his first title loss just before retiring and was beaten via TKO by Cervantes. He was done by this stage though so...

lol at Benitez! Man, he was such a good fighter at times. His performance against Duran was by far his greatest with Duran on the slide after his loss to Leonard and especially that they both despised each other. Duran did look pretty awful though in it. He was gassed by the tenth round! T'was sad seeing him like that especially when you consider that he used to go fifteen rounds at full crazy pace like a motherf^&*&r! He is definitely up there with the greatest as well speaking of him.

Yeah, I can't decide on the Graham vs Toney. Toney fought better fighters even though he got a few draws, they were against stellar opposition and it was when he was quite inactive during fights due to his lack of energy from weight drain at Middle. Whereas Graham also fought great fighters he was knocked horribly cold in one of the worst KO's I've ever seen! But then again, if Jackson cracked anyone they were gone for the count! He was also giving Jackson such a schooling at the time, it was sad. I really wish he had won that fight because he was never given his dues after it.

Dwiens, as far as I know Floyd and Toney did a fair bit of sparring together when he was young and thats why I said he got a lot from him but yes, he also picked up that from his dad. Just developed it further in sparring with him. Unfortunately his dad never used it that well in his fights! lol

That was a fantastic clip of Whittaker Sweet Pete (did you make that?). God he was a freak!
I can't take credit for that HL, no, but it's my fave on the net.

Of the guys mentioned, in terms of defense, it is very subjective as to who is the best, because all the guys we are mentioning were known for their slipperiness and ability to avoid shots,so it just depends on who you like. I like Whitaker for his all around game to compliment his defense.

The best defense and counter-punching I've ever observed from an offense-oriented fighter was that of one Roberto Durán.

Any rebuttals?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fHl3FLPrUE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fHl3FLPrUE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Two of the best defensive fighters I've ever seen.
great fight!

Benitez is the greatest defensive fighter, IMO. I see a video up there of Pernell ducking shots and making guys look foolish.. Benitez was doing that and (dare I say it?) a little better. He gave Leonard fits. He spanked Duran.. and what made it more incredible was that he stood right in front of you. Not the Toney-esque, hands-up approach. But arms low, shoulders down. And you still could rarely catch him clean.

I agree with you about Duran. He was very subtle with his defense. It didn't really catch your eye because he was always coming forward- but it was definitely there.

Herol Graham had the better knack for defense than did Toney.. he also was unfocused and could rely heavily on his great reflexes. And yes- it cost him against Jackson. Toney is a more complete fighter, but if you want to look solely at defense, Bomber Graham is the better man.


I'm not going to disagree. He was one hell of a fighter. You know what really amazes me about him though is that he had one of the most complete games at the youngest age of any fighter ever I think. Most fighters slowly pick up their defensive game as they move on and really peak around their late twenties in terms of defense. Basically, it comes with really having fought a lot and having been in so many times they learn to understand what' coming next and they deal with it better seemingly at a slightly older age. He was just born with it and was peaking in his mid-late teens!!! That is just insane. He certainly wasn't fighting any chumps either so you really knew his game was the real deal.

I think Benitez was quite different from Whittaker. He seemed to have a stronger technical foundation whereas Whittaker was maybe a bit more instinctive. Also relied much more on counter punching as his main game than did Sweet Pea.

As for 'Lights Out' yes, he didn't really have the same 'philly shell' type of defense that Toney had and relied on. Toney was much more into using his shoulder up for everything and turning more side on to bend away and let the punches ride over and counter that way. Very stand in defense...like Mayweather kind of but more of a 'fighter'. Benitez was much more of a boxer using lateral movement, working behind the jab etc and using that movement along with head movement for his defense more than just upper body dexterity as per Toney.

Definitely agree with you about Graham. He really was fantastic. I find it strange that so few people know of him and dig his fighting. He was damn fine! Actually, that whole group of light/middle/supermiddleweights were one of the greatest in terms of talent that I can remember. I don't think that era gets it's proper dues for the amount of stunning, talented fighters. The great thing was there was every type of great fighter. You had super ridiculous power punchers (Jackson, McClellan, Benn etc) that could actually box better than half the 'boxers' today as well as the boxer/punchers like McCallum, Eubank, Curry (when he moved up), Toney and the pure boxers as well like Graham, Jones Jr, Watson etc etc blah blah. I'm sure you get my point.

Yep, love Duran. His defense was easily the greatest of any inside, offensive based fighter.


I can't take credit for that HL, no, but it's my fave on the net.

Of the guys mentioned, in terms of defense, it is very subjective as to who is the best, because all the guys we are mentioning were known for their slipperiness and ability to avoid shots,so it just depends on who you like. I like Whitaker for his all around game to compliment his defense.

Also, theres just so many...Too many to enjoy thats it's nearly impossible to say this guy is the best and all the rest just don't come close. I prefer a good defensive type fighter or a fighter that actually has some serious skills to any other really but when you look at the amount of guys and the different styles, like a Duran who fights so vastly different from a Whittaker and yet still have such great defense it's too hard to actually pick just one guy.

Not only that but there are tons of guys that we haven't even seen much footage of like Pep who is the obvious front-runner of this whole thread. The original defensive genius. You're right man, it's completely subjective and entirely based on personal opinion...much like everything on here lol

:boxing:

Willie Pep

The best defense and counter-punching I've ever observed from an offense-oriented fighter was that of one Roberto Durán.

Any rebuttals?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LZROK-t5Pmo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LZROK-t5Pmo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
'Tex' Cobb gives Duran a run for his money for having the best defense from an offensive-oriented fighter.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBIRabnCQw8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBIRabnCQw8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Here's Willie Pep.

The best defense and counter-punching I've ever observed from an offense-oriented fighter was that of one Roberto Durán.

Any rebuttals?


'Tex' Cobb gives Durán a run for his money for having the best defense from an offensive-oriented fighter.That's not a rebuttal. A rebuttal would present an argument to the contrary about Duran. You merely offered a parallel in Tex Cobb.

A click of my signature video would demonstrate Duran's uncanny ability to slip punches at close range while in attack mode. Most fighters leave themselves open to counter punches in order to land their own. Not Durán, he was the consumate (pardon the expression) multitasker.

I'm not going to disagree. He was one hell of a fighter. You know what really amazes me about him though is that he had one of the most complete games at the youngest age of any fighter ever I think. Most fighters slowly pick up their defensive game as they move on and really peak around their late twenties in terms of defense. Basically, it comes with really having fought a lot and having been in so many times they learn to understand what' coming next and they deal with it better seemingly at a slightly older age. He was just born with it and was peaking in his mid-late teens!!! That is just insane. He certainly wasn't fighting any chumps either so you really knew his game was the real deal.

I think Benitez was quite different from Whittaker. He seemed to have a stronger technical foundation whereas Whittaker was maybe a bit more instinctive. Also relied much more on counter punching as his main game than did Sweet Pea.

As for 'Lights Out' yes, he didn't really have the same 'philly shell' type of defense that Toney had and relied on. Toney was much more into using his shoulder up for everything and turning more side on to bend away and let the punches ride over and counter that way. Very stand in defense...like Mayweather kind of but more of a 'fighter'. Benitez was much more of a boxer using lateral movement, working behind the jab etc and using that movement along with head movement for his defense more than just upper body dexterity as per Toney.

Definitely agree with you about Graham. He really was fantastic. I find it strange that so few people know of him and dig his fighting. He was damn fine! Actually, that whole group of light/middle/supermiddleweights were one of the greatest in terms of talent that I can remember. I don't think that era gets it's proper dues for the amount of stunning, talented fighters. The great thing was there was every type of great fighter. You had super ridiculous power punchers (Jackson, McClellan, Benn etc) that could actually box better than half the 'boxers' today as well as the boxer/punchers like McCallum, Eubank, Curry (when he moved up), Toney and the pure boxers as well like Graham, Jones Jr, Watson etc etc blah blah. I'm sure you get my point.

Yep, love Duran. His defense was easily the greatest of any inside, offensive based fighter.



It's really a shame about benitez, when you consider the fact that this prodigy with so much talent barely ever trained with conviction. Who knows how much better he could have done without those bad training habits and trouble outside of the ring.


The 90's era of Mid-range weightclasses (154-168) had some of the most talented fighters in it, ever. Several guys who ended up being P4P number 1, at some point down the line. That may likely be my favorite era.

I say all that to make an explanation as to why Bomber Graham slipped through the cracks. He was in such a good division. I mean, even the guys who were considered 'second tier' (i.e Tim Littles) could do some serious damage in plenty of other eras. It's just that they were lucky/unlucky (depending on how you see it) to be fighting in one of the most talented divisions ever.

I'll have to disagree with the bit about Benitez having a stronger counter-punching game than Pea. He did possibly rely on it more, but I believe that is because Pea was more rounded. Other than his jab though, the strongest part of Pea's game were his perfectly timed counters. His defensive displays in my opinion were flashier than Benitez, though Benitez's just as effective.

I'll have to disagree with the bit about Benitez having a stronger counter-punching game than Pea. He did possibly rely on it more, but I believe that is because Pea was more rounded. Other than his jab though, the strongest part of Pea's game were his perfectly timed counters. His defensive displays in my opinion were flashier than Benitez, though Benitez's just as effective.

I didn't necessarily mean a stronger (as in better) game, just that he seemed to use pure counter punching much more than did Sweet Pea. As in he would jab, jab, jab then counter with a right when his opponent threw something. That was what he relied most heavily on throughout an entire fight rarely straying from that, if ever. You could be right in that the reason he (S.P) did that was because he had a bit more to offer in terms of being able and willing to get inside and mix it up more than Benitez. Of course though, Sweet Pea was a stunning counter puncher...He was also a brilliant body puncher and I hardly ever see him get credit for that. That was one of my favourites parts of his game. He really mixed up his attack and did beautiful work to the body.

It's really a shame about benitez, when you consider the fact that this prodigy with so much talent barely ever trained with conviction. Who knows how much better he could have done without those bad training habits and trouble outside of the ring.


The 90's era of Mid-range weightclasses (154-168) had some of the most talented fighters in it, ever. Several guys who ended up being P4P number 1, at some point down the line. That may likely be my favorite era.

I say all that to make an explanation as to why Bomber Graham slipped through the cracks. He was in such a good division. I mean, even the guys who were considered 'second tier' (i.e Tim Littles) could do some serious damage in plenty of other eras. It's just that they were lucky/unlucky (depending on how you see it) to be fighting in one of the most talented divisions ever.

Yes, absolutely. Maybe because of that he seemed to peak so early and fade so early as well. Or maybe he had a physical peak much earlier than most guys because it seemed by the time he was only in his mid twenties he was very nearly done. Much like Pepino Cuevas who when only 25 or so was basically shot. Though that was after getting some nasty beatings from Tommy Hearns and Roberto Duran.

I guess also he was mentally shot from his outside troubles and simple lack of discipline and training. It's funny though because he had one of, if not his greatest, performance against Duran when he was I think 23 or 24 then after that never did anything good again. Maybe he had accomplished all he felt he could and mentally could not get up again for another big one. He lost to a bunch of guys he should have whipped after that.

What the ****? Gotta be Naseem Hamed.



Y'all dont know **** about boxing.

Mayweather jr has to be up there, MAybe u could slip winky wright in there as well

I just read your post, and I was going to say Winky Wright in there too.

What the ****? Gotta be Naseem Hamed.



Y'all dont know **** about boxing.

Evidenced by his display of defensive prowess against Barrera and all those other chumps that knocked him down.