View Full Version : Who was the best offensive fighter in history


MRBOOMER
04-13-2011, 06:03 PM
Best combos head movement and all that fast knocks outs and fighters that offense was there defense?

Barn
04-13-2011, 06:11 PM
Best combos head movement and all that fast knocks outs and fighters that offense was there defense?
Sugar Ray Robinson should be the most popular answer in this thread by a longshot.

Steak
04-13-2011, 06:20 PM
Sugar Ray Robinson should be the most popular answer in this thread by a longshot.
also Hearns. with his power over multiple weight classes and the fact he arguably has the best jab and straight right of all time(not to mention very good body shots and left hook when he used them), I think he fits the bill.

BigStereotype
04-13-2011, 06:23 PM
Robinson (obviously)
Louis
Leonard
Pacquiao

Those are the first names that come to mind.

RubenSonny
04-13-2011, 07:01 PM
also Hearns. with his power over multiple weight classes and the fact he arguably has the best jab and straight right of all time(not to mention very good body shots and left hook when he used them), I think he fits the bill.

I find this subject hard to pick for the most part, but I don't think Hearns is on the same level as Robinson in terms of offensive, not only could he fight at all distances, but he had a much better chin too.

IronDanHamza
04-13-2011, 07:36 PM
I already touched on why it's difficult to measure.

But from what I have seen I would say Joe Louis.

From what I have read maybe Harry Greb or Bob Fitzsimmons.

But seriously anyone in this section could reel off 50 names off the top of their head, it's such a difficult task.

Barn
04-13-2011, 07:38 PM
also Hearns. with his power over multiple weight classes and the fact he arguably has the best jab and straight right of all time(not to mention very good body shots and left hook when he used them), I think he fits the bill.
Robinson had no weaknesses and his left hook > Hearns' right hand imo.

Barn
04-13-2011, 07:39 PM
I already touched on why it's difficult to measure.

But from what I have seen I would say Joe Louis.

From what I have read maybe Harry Greb or Bob Fitzsimmons.

But seriously anyone in this section could reel off 50 names off the top of their head, it's such a difficult task.
Greb did lack power though.

The_Demon
04-13-2011, 07:44 PM
In terms of textbook punching Joe Louis and Ricardo Lopez spring too mind

The_Demon
04-13-2011, 07:45 PM
Duran deserves a mention too

IronDanHamza
04-13-2011, 07:51 PM
Greb did lack power though.

I'm not so sure about that. He may not have had crushing power but he had almost as many KO's as some fighters mentioned had fights.

He wasn't known as 'Fearless' Harry Greb or the Pittsburgh Windmill for no reason. The guy was an offensive fighter, and as you and I and everyone in this section knows, he was a damn good one.

joseph5620
04-13-2011, 07:59 PM
I already touched on why it's difficult to measure.

But from what I have seen I would say Joe Louis.

From what I have read maybe Harry Greb or Bob Fitzsimmons.

But seriously anyone in this section could reel off 50 names off the top of their head, it's such a difficult task.

I agree completely. There are too many fighters who can be listed and overlooked.

Jim Jeffries
04-13-2011, 08:06 PM
Hank Armstrong hasn't been mentioned yet.

Barn
04-13-2011, 08:06 PM
I'm not so sure about that. He may not have had crushing power but he had almost as many KO's as some fighters mentioned had fights.

He wasn't known as 'Fearless' Harry Greb or the Pittsburgh Windmill for no reason. The guy was an offensive fighter, and as you and I and everyone in this section knows, he was a damn good one.
Of course of course, there is no doubt he was the Henry Armstrong of his era (another choice) I'm just mentioning he didn't have the Power of say Robinson or Hearns.
He was obviously a pressure fighter who wore you down.

Barn
04-13-2011, 08:06 PM
Hank Armstrong hasn't been mentioned yet.
You seriously beat me by four seconds.

IronDanHamza
04-13-2011, 08:11 PM
Of course of course, there is no doubt he was the Henry Armstrong of his era (another choice) I'm just mentioning he didn't have the Power of say Robinson or Hearns.He was obviously a pressure fighter who wore you down.

Who is? :lol1:

Mannn trying to name a handful of fighters that are the 'best offensive fighters' in such a historical sport where the aim is to beat the hell out of each other is a damn hard task :lol1:

I'm going to stick with Joe Louis.

Barn
04-13-2011, 08:17 PM
Who is? :lol1:

Mannn trying to name a handful of fighters that are the 'best offensive fighters' in such a historical sport where the aim is to beat the hell out of each other is a damn hard task :lol1:

I'm going to stick with Joe Louis.
No I know no-one is saying it but, in offense that's a large factor, so it's like Joe Frazier for toughness he has everyhting but, his chin lets him get bested by the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Hagler etc.

IronDanHamza
04-13-2011, 08:30 PM
No I know no-one is saying it but, in offense that's a large factor, so it's like Joe Frazier for toughness he has everyhting but, his chin lets him get bested by the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Hagler etc.

Yeah, I follow, bro.

Ray Robinson is an excellent choice.

goblin213
04-13-2011, 09:33 PM
Jose Napoles, he has one of the most fluid offense ever. Plus look at how this guy uses his offense for defense as well, he throws punches to smother or stop oncoming punches.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GR-kuFNSXrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steak
04-13-2011, 11:58 PM
I find this subject hard to pick for the most part, but I don't think Hearns is on the same level as Robinson in terms of offensive, not only could he fight at all distances, but he had a much better chin too.
Nah, I wouldnt put Hearns over Robinson either. but hes certainly up there when the subject is 'greatest offensive fighter of all time'.

Wild Blue Yonda
04-14-2011, 01:31 AM
An all-time jab, a picture-perfect left hook, one-shot knockout power from either the left or right side, a jarring uppercut, a short, rapier straight right, positively blistering handspeed, perfect punching technique, unparalleled precision & accuracy, & maybe, just maybe, the most qualified combination-puncher of all-time.

Really, why would anyone need anybody beyond the Brown Bomber for this thread?

Ziggy Stardust
04-14-2011, 01:32 AM
I'm surprised his name hasn't been brought up yet and that's Mike Tyson. While I don't think he's on the same level as Louis or Robinson (who was really?) I figure he deserves a mention.

Poet

Wild Blue Yonda
04-14-2011, 01:34 AM
I'm surprised his name hasn't been brought up yet and that's Mike Tyson. While I don't think he's on the same level as Louis or Robinson (who was really?) I figure he deserves a mention.

Poet

Tyson was in my mind as I wrote out my post, because he has some similarities with the description I posted above of Louis. He's definitely one of the elites in this category, at the very least, in terms of the HW division.

I would have Louis over even Robinson here, being honest.

Ziggy Stardust
04-14-2011, 03:08 AM
An all-time jab, a picture-perfect left hook, one-shot knockout power from either the left or right side, a jarring uppercut, a short, rapier straight right, positively blistering handspeed, perfect punching technique, unparalleled precision & accuracy, & maybe, just maybe, the most qualified combination-puncher of all-time.

Really, why would anyone need anybody beyond the Brown Bomber for this thread?

Yeah, Louis really is the gold standard of boxing when it comes to offense.....hence Ring Magazine voting him the greatest puncher of all time. I think just as highly of Robinson's offense. I mean, there's Louis and Robinson and then there's everybody else.

Have to give an honorable mention to Dempsey too.

Poet

studentofthegam
04-14-2011, 10:53 PM
I know no one wants to say it but thers a huge elephant in the room named Manny Pacquiao. I like Pryor and Hearns too. Been watchin a lot more of Ricardo Lopez and he deserves a mention, brutal.

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 12:41 AM
I know no one wants to say it but thers a huge elephant in the room named Manny Pacquiao.

Consider studying another game: You have no grasp of this one.

Poet

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 01:00 AM
Consider studying another game: You have no grasp of this one.

PoetThis coming from a grown man that came up with a character to portray. Pac is all offense. It takes a lot more punches for these bigger guys but he blasted them outn at the lower weights. Its about consistency. Whats the problem?

SCtrojansbaby
04-15-2011, 01:36 AM
Manny Pacquiao and Aaron Pryor

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 12:31 PM
This coming from a grown man that came up with a character to portray. Pac is all offense. It takes a lot more punches for these bigger guys but he blasted them outn at the lower weights. Its about consistency. Whats the problem?

The problem is that Pacquiao, while good, isn't in the same class offensively as someone like Louis, Robinson, Hearns, Armstrong, or the others listed. If you were a C student or better you'd know that.

Poet

goblin213
04-15-2011, 01:45 PM
Another offensive monster is Myung Woo Yuh. Very underrated fighter. One of the best volume punching pressure fighter in boxing history who never neglects defense.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2Cbr6ll05JA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 02:14 PM
The problem is that Pacquiao. while good, isn't in the same class offensively as someone like Louis, Robinson, Hearns, Armstrong, or the others listed. If you were a C student or better you'd know that.

PoetWhy? because he's still alive. Come off the nostalgia. If you mention offense which includes work rate, late stamina, and power Pacman is the first name that comes to mind in 2011. How long have you been in your mama's basement? You tend not to give credit to any fighter with a pulse.

qari
04-15-2011, 02:21 PM
Prince Naseem Hamed? His defence was his offence n his offence was his defence

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 02:29 PM
Why? because he's still alive. Come off the nostalgia. If you mention offense which includes work rate, late stamina, and power Pacman is the first name that comes to mind in 2011. How long have you been in your mama's basement? You tend not to give credit to any fighter with a pulse.

No sale. Hearns is "still alive" so your attempt at sarcasm is a colossal FAIL. The problem YOU have is you're wedded to a false position that latest = greatest. Unlike you I'm a student of the totality of boxing while you're locked into only what HBO's serving up currently. Boxing is far more than just what's going on today with 100+ years of great fighters to pick from. Trust me on this, if Pacquiao and Mayweather had never been born boxing wouldn't notice the lack.

Poet

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 03:04 PM
No sale. Hearns is "still alive" so your attempt at sarcasm is a colossal FAIL. The problem YOU have is you're wedded to a false position that latest = greatest. Unlike you I'm a student of the totality of boxing while you're locked into only what HBO's serving up currently. Boxing is far more than just what's going on today with 100+ years of great fighters to pick from. Trust me on this, if Pacquiao and Mayweather had never been born boxing wouldn't notice the lack.

PoetYou give away the fact that youre hiding hate by mentioning Mayweather and he's so far from the subject at hand. How old are you? Serious question. No Pac, No Floyd and boxing takes a huge hit hear in the 21st century. Its not about the latest just simply the greatest. Every era has had great fighters. Deciding who is the all time greatest is an opinion. Though Pac isnt my first choice I cant give anybody flack for giving him the nod in this category. The biggest fools are the ones who try to appear intelligent and are just really stuck in a time warp. Save your fun facts from 1919 for the kids on here that think something of you because I dont. Been roun' here long enough to know when somebody's all fluff and hiding behind history because they think it makes them cool.

joseph5620
04-15-2011, 04:07 PM
You give away the fact that youre hiding hate by mentioning Mayweather and he's so far from the subject at hand. How old are you? Serious question. No Pac, No Floyd and boxing takes a huge hit hear in the 21st century. Its not about the latest just simply the greatest. Every era has had great fighters. Deciding who is the all time greatest is an opinion. Though Pac isnt my first choice I cant give anybody flack for giving him the nod in this category. The biggest fools are the ones who try to appear intelligent and are just really stuck in a time warp. Save your fun facts from 1919 for the kids on here that think something of you because I dont. Been roun' here long enough to know when somebody's all fluff and hiding behind history because they think it makes them cool.

It really would because they are the biggest draw in boxing right now.The numbers and money they generate are huge for boxing.

El_Forklift
04-15-2011, 04:14 PM
Foyd :bounce:

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 05:06 PM
It really would because they are the biggest draw in boxing right now.The numbers and money they generate are huge for boxing.He knows it too. I'm 30 and I vowed never to be one of those old mf's who always says sh*t was better 20 years ago. "Tomlison that aint a runnin back, Now Jim Brown and Riggins those are real runnin backs" No their all good just lived in different time periods.

Barn
04-15-2011, 05:09 PM
It really would because they are the biggest draw in boxing right now.The numbers and money they generate are huge for boxing.
I think Poet was referring to Boxing as a whole not just this time period.

If Pac and Floyd were not around someone else would just take their spot as the best fighters and draw the most money surely?

joseph5620
04-15-2011, 05:22 PM
I think Poet was referring to Boxing as a whole not just this time period.

If Pac and Floyd were not around someone else would just take their spot as the best fighters and draw the most money surely?











For a long time past prime Oscar Delahoya was the biggest draw in boxing when he was far from the best fighter in boxing. My point is that Pacquiao or Mayweather are a tremendous economic boost for boxing. Fighters like that are not common and if they were not around there is no guarantee another fighter could fill in for them with equal results. I'm not saying boxing would die without either one. It wouldn't. Boxing will never die IMO. But their existence unquestionably has an impact and without them it would be noticeable.

Barn
04-15-2011, 05:29 PM
For a long time past prime Oscar Delahoya was the biggest draw in boxing when he was far from the best fighter in boxing. My point is that Pacquiao or Mayweather are a tremendous economic boost for boxing. Fighters like that are not common and if they were not around there is no guarantee another fighter could fill in for them with equal results. I'm not saying boxing would die without either one. It wouldn't. Boxing will never die IMO. But their existence unquestionably has an impact and without them it would be noticeable.
Yes but, Mayweather draws a lot of money because he is the best.

If Mayweather wasn't good there would be no fun in watching him.

The same cannot be said for Pacquiao who is a great offensive machine (Probably just short of the top bracket ie: Robinson) has great heart and is entertaining.

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 05:39 PM
Yes but, Mayweather draws a lot of money because he is the best.

If Mayweather wasn't good there would be no fun in watching him.

The same cannot be said for Pacquiao who is a great offensive machine (Probably just short of the top bracket ie: Robinson) has great heart and is entertaining.Thats the whole deal. The thread is about offensive fighters and as you said Pac's an offensive machine. Poet is just stuck in his ways. If we use that logic then there would never be anymore great fighters.

joseph5620
04-15-2011, 05:59 PM
Yes but, Mayweather draws a lot of money because he is the best.

If Mayweather wasn't good there would be no fun in watching him.

The same cannot be said for Pacquiao who is a great offensive machine (Probably just short of the top bracket ie: Robinson) has great heart and is entertaining.

I agree with that.

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 06:29 PM
Poet is just stuck in his ways. If we use that logic then there would never be anymore great fighters.

Funny, but last time I checked I had Holyfield ranked #7 all-time at Heavyweight, Roy Jones ranked #6 all-time at Light-Heavyweight, Bernard Hopkins ranked #6 all-time at Middleweight, and Shane Mosley ranked #13 all-time at Welterweight. Active fighters one and all. If we used YOUR logic, all ATG lists would get flushed each generation to reflect whatever the current top-ten in each division are. Afterall, occording to YOUR logic, dead guys can't be great cuz they're dead.

Poet

Barn
04-15-2011, 06:29 PM
Thats the whole deal. The thread is about offensive fighters and as you said Pac's an offensive machine. Poet is just stuck in his ways. If we use that logic then there would never be anymore great fighters.
Yes but, short of the likes of: Hearns, Robinson, Louis and Armstrong.

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 06:33 PM
I think Poet was referring to Boxing as a whole not just this time period.

If Pac and Floyd were not around someone else would just take their spot as the best fighters and draw the most money surely?

Precisely. If Pac and May didn't exist someone else would get hyped into a money-maker. That just how it works.

My overall point is that no particular fighter is bigger than the sport. There have been many great fighters in boxing over the last 100+ years so the sport isn't going to roll over and die simply because there's two less.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 06:36 PM
He knows it too. I'm 30 and I vowed never to be one of those old mf's who always says sh*t was better 20 years ago. "Tomlison that aint a runnin back, Now Jim Brown and Riggins those are real runnin backs" No their all good just lived in different time periods.

So instead you became the exact opposite: "Those dudes were good in their day but today's are the best ever" :bullsh1t9:

Poet

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 07:15 PM
So instead you became the exact opposite: "Those dudes were good in their day but today's are the best ever" :bullsh1t9:

PoetTo be an A student you sure dont comprehend well. My point is that they're all good. Are those not my exact words? Stop trying to guess what I think and read what Im telling you. Check my answer to the thread and neither of my picks are fighting anymore. But like I'll say once again for the remedial "I can not sh*t on a person for choosing PAC in this particular categorie". Tighten up "A" student. Its not a crime to say an active fighter at the top of their game is as good as any fighter from any other era. It's all opinion.

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 07:18 PM
Precisely. If Pac and May didn't exist someone else would get hyped into a money-maker. That just how it works.

My overall point is that no particular fighter is bigger than the sport. There have been many great fighters in boxing over the last 100+ years so the sport isn't going to roll over and die simply because there's two less.

PoetIf there wasnt bodies of water there would be no need for boats. How is saying a guy is a great offensive fighter making him bigger than the sport. No era has ever changed in that aspect. There are elites and then there are the rest.

TouchyAndalou
04-15-2011, 08:32 PM
Yes but, Mayweather draws a lot of money because he is the best.

If Mayweather wasn't good there would be no fun in watching him. Mayweather's ability is of course a contributing factor towards his commercial success, but not the main one, I don't think. I mean before he fought Oscar, he was likely still the best in the sport, but drew nowhere near the figures he does now. It's just as much if not more his ostentatious personality and the overall dislike factor that has seen him rise to sport-topping numbers, coupled with the exposure he and his act received courtesy of that Oscar fight.

The sport being where it is at the moment, I don't think we can just assume that should Pacquiao and Mayweather retire, there are ready-made replacements waiting to do the same or similar numbers. It's not impossible, because Mayweather and Pacquiao's rise to commercial dominance occurred over a relatively short period of time, but it could be that their appeal is just unique compared to the rest of the current crop of fighters. For instance, imagine both those guys retire tomorrow, and Andre Ward wins the Super Six, beats Lucian Bute and becomes recognised as the no.1 p4p fighter in the sport, which is not beyond the realms of possibility. Does that mean that being the best in boxing, Ward automatically sees his stock sky-rocket to 1 million+ payperview figures? I'd argue not, based on what I know about Andre Ward and his potential appeal.

I think the two most natural looking successors to Floyd and Manny, at least in the short term, may be Martinez and Gamboa, although their prospects appear somewhat limited due to their inability to speak English, and not to mention Martinez's age. Valero had a shot too, but he's, you know, sort of dead. Actually, thinking about it, Donaire, despite his laid back persona, may be the most ready-made future star, especially if he picks up the feverish support of the Filipino population following Pacquiao's retirement.

TouchyAndalou
04-15-2011, 08:39 PM
Funny, but last time I checked I had Holyfield ranked #7 all-time at Heavyweight, Roy Jones ranked #6 all-time at Light-Heavyweight, Bernard Hopkins ranked #6 all-time at Middleweight, and Shane Mosley ranked #13 all-time at Welterweight. Active fighters one and all.Yeah but you don't have Anthony Mundine at #2 all-time at Light-Middleweight, which proves that you're just a hater!

Or do you...?

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 10:24 PM
Yeah but you don't have Anthony Mundine at #2 all-time at Light-Middleweight, which proves that you're just a hater!

Or do you...?

:hahahaha9::hahahaha9::hahahaha9::hahahaha9:

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 10:25 PM
To be an A student you sure dont comprehend well. My point is that they're all good. Are those not my exact words? Stop trying to guess what I think and read what Im telling you. Check my answer to the thread and neither of my picks are fighting anymore. But like I'll say once again for the remedial "I can not sh*t on a person for choosing PAC in this particular categorie". Tighten up "A" student. Its not a crime to say an active fighter at the top of their game is as good as any fighter from any other era. It's all opinion.

Opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of sh1t.

Poet

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 10:30 PM
Opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of sh1t.

Poet42 years old huh? You prove my point over and over again. Move out!! She wont tell you but she wants you gone man!!

Ziggy Stardust
04-15-2011, 10:32 PM
To be an A student you sure dont comprehend well. My point is that they're all good. Are those not my exact words? Stop trying to guess what I think and read what Im telling you. Check my answer to the thread and neither of my picks are fighting anymore. But like I'll say once again for the remedial "I can not sh*t on a person for choosing PAC in this particular categorie". Tighten up "A" student. Its not a crime to say an active fighter at the top of their game is as good as any fighter from any other era. It's all opinion.

Actually, what you said wasWhy? because he's still alive. Come off the nostalgia.when it was suggested that Pacquiao wasn't in the same class offensively as Louis, Robinson, and Hearns. Sorry dude, while all eras are equal overall, not all elite fighters are equal. Case in point: While Ali and Marciano are both ATG calibre (aka "elite") fighters they are most certainly NOT equal in ability; and in that particular example the more recent fighter is also the superior one.

Poet

studentofthegam
04-15-2011, 10:38 PM
Actually, what you said was:

When it was suggested that Pacquiao wasn't in the same class offensively as Louis, Robinson, and Hearns. Sorry dude, while all eras are equal overall, not all elite fighters are equal. Case in point: Ali and Marciano are both ATG calibre (aka "elite") fighters they are most certainly NOT equal in ability; and in that particular example the more recent fighter is also the superior one.

PoetOK I know what your type likes to hear so here it is. You win. Youre the best boxing fan ever. You good now, because Ive had my fill.

Scott9945
04-15-2011, 10:48 PM
Precisely. If Pac and May didn't exist someone else would get hyped into a money-maker. That just how it works.

That's an interesting topic by itself. I think you could make good points on both sides. You can maybe create an imiitation of Oscar De La Hoya, but nobody has come close to having the phenomonal charisma or popularity of Mike Tyson.

MRBOOMER
04-16-2011, 03:00 PM
Hey meldrick Taylor I mean he ain't hit to hard but he's all that other stuff I mentioned or here's one that nobody thinks of Benitez he was like a carbon copy of a lot a fighters aha

Body_Shot
04-16-2011, 07:04 PM
Mike Tyson, end threat

Scott9945
04-16-2011, 08:07 PM
Hey meldrick Taylor I mean he ain't hit to hard but he's all that other stuff I mentioned or here's one that nobody thinks of Benitez he was like a carbon copy of a lot a fighters aha

Taylor had fast hands and a lot of heart. But he doesn't belong in the top 100 if you were to make an actual list.

Barn
04-16-2011, 08:18 PM
Taylor had fast hands and a lot of heart. But he doesn't belong in the top 100 if you were to make an actual list.
Top 100 offensive fighters?

MRBOOMER
04-16-2011, 08:44 PM
Taylor had fast hands and a lot of heart. But he doesn't belong in the top 100 if you were to make an actual list.

Great then you got your next thread top 100 offensive fighters or maybe 10

Scott9945
04-16-2011, 08:51 PM
Great then you got your next thread top 100 offensive fighters or maybe 10

I don't make lists. But if you are talking about boxing history, I'd be surprised if anyone here would put Taylor in the top 100 and shocked if he showed up in a top 10. But if you insist, I'm sure I could quickly come up with 10-20 better offensive fighters than Meldrick Taylor.

MRBOOMER
04-16-2011, 09:43 PM
I don't make lists. But if you are talking about boxing history, I'd be surprised if anyone here would put Taylor in the top 100 and shocked if he showed up in a top 10. But if you insist, I'm sure I could quickly come up with 10-20 better offensive fighters than Meldrick Taylor.

Lol well hey if you read when I made the thread he fits sum of the things..

The Surgeon
04-17-2011, 05:10 AM
Mike Tyson deserves a mention but his lack of a real inside game hurts him. Felix Trinidad was an offensive monster. Aaron Pryor used his non stop offense as a defence and for the most part it worked damn well. Henry Armstrong, a true force. Tony Ayala Jnr, a Young Barrera, damn so many. My personal pick would be Joe Louis tho, full offensive package :boxing:

JAB5239
04-18-2011, 03:43 AM
Greb did lack power though.

Greb was no power puncher but his always brought the fight to his opponent and most of his big fights were dominant landslide wins.

IronDanHamza
04-18-2011, 10:03 AM
Greb was no power puncher but his always brought the fight to his opponent and most of his big fights were dominant landslide wins.

That's where I was going when I mentioned him.

He may not have been a brutal power puncher but by God was he an incredible offensive fighter.

IronDanHamza
04-18-2011, 10:07 AM
Mike Tyson deserves a mention but his lack of a real inside game hurts him. Felix Trinidad was an offensive monster. Aaron Pryor used his non stop offense as a defence and for the most part it worked damn well. Henry Armstrong, a true force. Tony Ayala Jnr, a Young Barrera, damn so many. My personal pick would be Joe Louis tho, full offensive package :boxing:

I think Mike Tyson's inside game is underrated by most Historians.

He wasn't amazing on the inside and wasn't even an inside fighter like a Joe Fraizer he wore you down with chopping body shots to take you out down the line.

But Mike Tyson can fight inside, well. JMO.

Barn
04-18-2011, 12:00 PM
Greb was no power puncher but his always brought the fight to his opponent and most of his big fights were dominant landslide wins.

Of course of course, there is no doubt he was the Henry Armstrong of his era (another choice) I'm just mentioning he didn't have the Power of say Robinson or Hearns.
He was obviously a pressure fighter who wore you down.

In offense that's a large factor, so it's like Joe Frazier for toughness he has everyhting but, his chin lets him get bested by the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Hagler etc.

"lack" was defintely a bad word to use.

He didn't have Great power though which is his only downfall.*

*Refer to quote 2.

The Surgeon
04-18-2011, 12:14 PM
I think Mike Tyson's inside game is underrated by most Historians.

He wasn't amazing on the inside and wasn't even an inside fighter like a Joe Fraizer he wore you down with chopping body shots to take you out down the line.

But Mike Tyson can fight inside, well. JMO.

I feel like he was very dangerous inside as he could rip away with turbo bursts of heavy shots with his short arms. But then i do feel for the most part he just didnt. He imo just let a guy tie him up or didnt work enough on the inside where it should have clearly been Tyson territory. Still i think his opponents knew how dangerous he was short range and hence didnt work inside all that much either

Barn
04-18-2011, 12:24 PM
Mike Tyson didn't do a hellish lot on the inside and wasn't great there in my opinon.

There's a video where Rooster4Life really explained it but, his channel got deleted.

Ziggy Stardust
04-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Mike Tyson didn't do a hellish lot on the inside and wasn't great there in my opinon.

There's a video where Rooster4Life really explained it but, his channel got deleted.

I feel like he was very dangerous inside as he could rip away with turbo bursts of heavy shots with his short arms. But then i do feel for the most part he just didnt. He imo just let a guy tie him up or didnt work enough on the inside where it should have clearly been Tyson territory. Still i think his opponents knew how dangerous he was short range and hence didnt work inside all that much either

Tyson had the POTENTIAL to be a great inside fighter, he certainly had the right body type for it. He just didn't translate that potential to reality. The truth is, Tyson didn't like fighting on the inside preferring instead to fight at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. On those occasions where he did wind up inside he usually tied his opponents up and let the ref put him back out to the range he wanted without having to work his way there (and expending limited energy doing it) which to my mind is just smart ring tactics.

Poet

jabsRstiff
04-18-2011, 01:39 PM
Not saying these guys are the best, but they are amongst the best ever and deserve a mention...

They could throw every punch in the book with power, could do damage to a foe's body, and put their powershots together extremely well in combination-

Alexis Arguello
Carlos Zarate
Wilfredo Gomez

IronDanHamza
04-18-2011, 04:20 PM
Tyson had the POTENTIAL to be a great inside fighter, he certainly had the right body type for it. He just didn't translate that potential to reality. The truth is, Tyson didn't like fighting on the inside preferring instead to fight at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. On those occasions where he did wind up inside he usually tied his opponents up and let the ref put him back out to the range he wanted without having to work his way there (and expending limited energy doing it) which to my mind is just smart ring tactics.

Poet

I agree.

Tyson didn't do much inside more often than not and seemed limited inside.

I agree with your view on good ring tactics, I always thought that. Tyson was a mid range fighter in which he wanted to use his explosivness to full effect and get full leverage on his shots.

But again, though limited, I disagree with the majority then the say he had no inside game. Tyson did some great work on the inside at times and the rareity he fought on the inside was effective.

The Surgeon
04-19-2011, 12:20 PM
Not saying these guys are the best, but they are amongst the best ever and deserve a mention...

They could throw every punch in the book with power, could do damage to a foe's body, and put their powershots together extremely well in combination-

Alexis Arguello
Carlos Zarate
Wilfredo Gomez

Great call on Gomez jabsRstiff, all of em infact!

studentofthegam
04-19-2011, 04:33 PM
To me Tyson was decent inside. He separated well to throw those uppercuts.

CarlosG815
04-19-2011, 04:44 PM
Jack Dempsey, Ray Robinson and I always thought guys like Aaron Pryor, Mike Tyson, Ike Williams, Juan Marquez, Marco Antonio Barrera, etc were phenomenal.

I think Ike Williams was just as good offensively as Ray Robinson.

mickey malone
04-20-2011, 07:42 AM
Demsey's offensive game was largely fueled on adrenalin where as Tyson just wanted to kill you. Without doubt, they are two of the most offensve fighters in history but i don't think either of them had a better all round offence than Joe Louis who was a pure and clinical executioner without any of the snarling, growling and mauling which tend to be the trademark characteristics of most offensive fighters.

I'd say the lighter weights have yeilded a larger crop of fighters in this category.
Duran and Gomez in particular, with Chavez, Olivarez, Saddler, McGovern, Harada, Pryor, Arguello, Galaxy, Fenech, Trinidad and Pacquiao all worth a mention.

JAB5239
04-20-2011, 08:08 AM
Demsey's offensive game was largely fueled on adrenalin where as Tyson just wanted to kill you. Without doubt, they are two of the most offensve fighters in history but i don't think either of them had a better all round offence than Joe Louis who was a pure and clinical executioner without any of the snarling, growling and mauling which tend to be the trademark characteristics of most offensive fighters.

I'd say the lighter weights have yeilded a larger crop of fighters in this category.
Duran and Gomez in particular, with Chavez, Olivarez, Saddler, McGovern, Harada, Pryor, Arguello, Galaxy, Fenech, Trinidad and Pacquiao all worth a mention.

Terry McGovern is an excellent mention. :fing02:

Monte Fisto
04-29-2011, 11:35 PM
Not saying these guys are the best, but they are amongst the best ever and deserve a mention...

They could throw every punch in the book with power, could do damage to a foe's body, and put their powershots together extremely well in combination-

Alexis Arguello
Carlos Zarate
Wilfredo GomezJabsRstiff, you forgot about Tito Trinidad.

awais
04-30-2011, 10:53 AM
Joe Louis hands down. A more personal opinionated response would be RJJ though.

New England
04-30-2011, 11:51 AM
Tyson had the POTENTIAL to be a great inside fighter, he certainly had the right body type for it. He just didn't translate that potential to reality. The truth is, Tyson didn't like fighting on the inside preferring instead to fight at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. On those occasions where he did wind up inside he usually tied his opponents up and let the ref put him back out to the range he wanted without having to work his way there (and expending limited energy doing it) which to my mind is just smart ring tactics.

Poet



inside for the bigger longer guy he's fighting


middle for ground mike tyson


i wouldnt call him a pure infighter
but did fight his way inside of his opponents offense

physiker
04-30-2011, 12:16 PM
Pre-Douglas Tyson had awesome offense.
Pre-Ali Foreman was also monstrous.

Joe Louis, I can't see. If such "greats" as 2-ton Tony Galento (and numerous others) could drop Louis, and Conn--a LHW--walked through Louis' offense for 13 rounds, until he got foolish, how great could it have been?

Ziggy Stardust
04-30-2011, 01:13 PM
inside for the bigger longer guy he's fighting

middle for ground mike tyson

i wouldnt call him a pure infighter
but did fight his way inside of his opponents offense

You raise an interesting point and I'll get back to it after I get enough coffee into me to qualify as lucid :hah9:

Poet

IronDanHamza
04-30-2011, 01:36 PM
Pre-Douglas Tyson had awesome offense.
Pre-Ali Foreman was also monstrous.

Joe Louis, I can't see. If such "greats" as 2-ton Tony Galento (and numerous others) could drop Louis, and Conn--a LHW--walked through Louis' offense for 13 rounds, until he got foolish, how great could it have been?

You can't see it?

The Baer brothers, Carnera, Schmeling, Braddock (and numerous others) disagree with you.

I don't understand this Galento example which is always used to try and discredit Louis. Firstly, Galento was a decent fighter who could punch. He knocked Louis down? Ok...Then Louis went on to brutally stop him, like no one else had prior to that in Galento's long career.

Billy Conn walked through his offense "until he got foolish". That foolishness against Joe Louis will cost you a brutal KO, doesn't that support that idea he has an all time great offense? That it only need one act of foolishness to be brutally knocked out?

Joe Louis only needed two right hands to end the fight with Billy Conn, thats how good his offense is. Again, that example doesn't support your argument.

Years later Billy Conn said himself; "Of all the times to be a wise guy, I had to pick it against him"

Guess why he said that? Because Joe Louis is one of the greatest offensive fighters of all time..

Steak
04-30-2011, 02:07 PM
I dissected Louis' career a while back. The number of top competition he beat is amazing. There really is no argument for rating anyone above him other than Ali.

Of all thing to question Louis on, offense wasnt one I expected to come up. The way he could get such leverage within such a small amount of space was amazing. you can watch as his opponent's entire upper bodies are thrown back by the force of his punches

physiker
04-30-2011, 03:34 PM
You can't see it?

The Baer brothers, Carnera, Schmeling, Braddock (and numerous others) disagree with you.

I don't understand this Galento example which is always used to try and discredit Louis. Firstly, Galento was a decent fighter who could punch. He knocked Louis down? Ok...Then Louis went on to brutally stop him, like no one else had prior to that in Galento's long career.

Billy Conn walked through his offense "until he got foolish". That foolishness against Joe Louis will cost you a brutal KO, doesn't that support that idea he has an all time great offense? That it only need one act of foolishness to be brutally knocked out?

Joe Louis only needed two right hands to end the fight with Billy Conn, thats how good his offense is. Again, that example doesn't support your argument.

Years later Billy Conn said himself; "Of all the times to be a wise guy, I had to pick it against him"

Guess why he said that? Because Joe Louis is one of the greatest offensive fighters of all time..

I wrote Galento--and others--dropped Louis.
First off I am not arguing Joe Louis' greatness, though I don't think he was quite as great as the official line. Politics plays a large part.
Louis was KOed by Schmelling, dropped by Walcott several times in the 1st fight (if I recall correctly) and gifted the decision. Schmelling weighed 192.

Conn weighed 182 and if the fight were the 12 rounds of today, he would have won. I believe Ezzard Charles weighed 184 when he beat Louis. And yes Galento was a fat bum. No world class boxer should be KDed by him.

Louis himself weighed what about 195 or so for many of his fights. Bigger, heavier fighters with longer reach would be too much for him. Louis was dropped by fairly low weight guys. His offens eif that great should have kept these "little" guys off of him.

I am sure if he hit anyone flush on the chin, they'd go. But the ones I chose for greatest offense, Tyson, Foreman would have dropped Joe quickly. Ali would have easily beat him too. Liston and many others would have shown who had the greater offense IMO.

Ziggy Stardust
04-30-2011, 03:40 PM
I wrote Galento--and others--dropped Louis.
First off I am not arguing Joe Louis' greatness, though I don't think he was quite as great as the official line. Politics plays a large part.
Louis was KOed by Schmelling, dropped by Walcott several times in the 1st fight (if I recall correctly) and gifted the decision. Schmelling weighed 192.

Conn weighed 182 and if the fight were the 12 rounds of today, he would have won. I believe Ezzard Charles weighed 184 when he beat Louis. And yes Galento was a fat bum. No world class boxer should be KDed by him.

Louis himself weighed what about 195 or so for many of his fights. Bigger, heavier fighters with longer reach would be too much for him. Louis was dropped by fairly low weight guys. His offens eif that great should have kept these "little" guys off of him.

I am sure if he hit anyone flush on the chin, they'd go. But the ones I chose for greatest offense, Tyson, Foreman would have dropped Joe quickly. Ali would have easily beat him too. Liston and many others would have shown who had the greater offense IMO.

This sounds like another of KNN's size whoring alts :rolleyes9:

IronDanHamza
04-30-2011, 03:55 PM
I wrote Galento--and others--dropped Louis.
First off I am not arguing Joe Louis' greatness, though I don't think he was quite as great as the official line. Politics plays a large part.
Louis was KOed by Schmelling, dropped by Walcott several times in the 1st fight (if I recall correctly) and gifted the decision. Schmelling weighed 192.

I believe Ezzard Charles weighed 184 when he beat Louis.

Ok...That was what to do with his offensive game?

Why are we chosing to forget that Louis was openly out of shape for the first Schmeling fight? And that Louis was past his prime for the Walcott and Charles fights?

He was knocked down numerous times. That doesn't change the fact he beat the hell out of many top opponents with his exceptional offensive game.

Conn weighed 182 and if the fight were the 12 rounds of today, he would have won.

Well the Conn fight wasn't 12 rounds was it. It was 15 rounds.

If it were a 12 round fight, the fight would be different wouldn't it.

And yes Galento was a fat bum. No world class boxer should be KDed by him.

Galento wasn't a great fighter but he could certainly punch. He caught Louis a few times in the early rounds, one of which caused the KD. Thennn Louis stopped him, like no one else did up to that point.


Louis himself weighed what about 195 or so for many of his fights. Bigger, heavier fighters with longer reach would be too much for him. Louis was dropped by fairly low weight guys. His offens eif that great should have kept these "little" guys off of him.

This has what to do with a fighters offensive game? Although Louis dealt with bigger guys plenty of times.

He did keep these 'little guys' off him. Not only did he 'keep tem off him' but he very regularly knocked them into oblivion..

Unless your refering to fights we know he was past his prime like Walcott, Charles and Marciano?

Or like when he was unprepared like he was against Schmeling?

I am sure if he hit anyone flush on the chin, they'd go. But the ones I chose for greatest offense, Tyson, Foreman would have dropped Joe quickly. Ali would have easily beat him too. Liston and many others would have shown who had the greater offense IMO.

Yes, sounds like a pretty good offense trait to me.

Why do you keep refering to H2H match ups to identify someones offense?

"Ali would have easily beaten him" .......What does that have to do with anything.

What does the fact you think Liston, Foreman and Tyson woul drop Joe quickly have to do with how good Joe Louis' offense is?

You can't see Joe Louis having a case for the greatest offense of all time.

That's fine. You're in the minority with that one.

awais
04-30-2011, 03:58 PM
depending on how gamboa develops he could have a case in the future

physiker
04-30-2011, 03:59 PM
This sounds like another of KNN's size whoring alts :rolleyes9:

Please I was the one who recently had to deal with that feck.

Someone can't say that Louis was smaller and less powerful than the HWs of more recent times? Do you see any sickening photos of apes or such at my posts?

If I said Usain Bolt would crush Jesse Owens in a race, because he is so much bigger, etc. , does that mean I am demeaning Owens great achievements?

If all the top HWs in their primes fought each other, I think Ali woul dbe on top, and a good few others would be in between him and Joe Louis, because these others would be just too much for him. IOW, their OFFENSE would be too much which is what this thread was about. And just about all these others in between were black, so please don't put me with that creature who was trying to say the Klitschkos are the greatest of all time or such.

They are examples where the biggest is not the best IMO. Maybe even Joe Louis would have gotten inside and sparked those two out. But many HWs I stand by would have taken Louis out. I think Louis himself said Liston would have taken him out due to his offense.

New England
04-30-2011, 04:31 PM
You raise an interesting point and I'll get back to it after I get enough coffee into me to qualify as lucid :hah9:

Poet


to build off of the idea that mike tyson was not an infighter i'll add that i believe true infighting involves some sort of constant contact / conflicting space and center of gravity, which wasn't really what tyson had in mind at his best

mike was one of the best at remaining inside of his opponents offense while staying short and contained so he could keep his hands free (it helped that he didn't have a weak muscle on his body)
and thus not being a real infighter


i have the advantage of being a few hours ahead in timezone haha

Ziggy Stardust
04-30-2011, 10:39 PM
to build off of the idea that mike tyson was not an infighter i'll add that i believe true infighting involves some sort of constant contact/conflicting space and center of gravity, which wasn't really what tyson had in mind at his best

mike was one of the best at remaining inside of his opponents offense while staying short and contained so he could keep his hands free (it helped that he didn't have a weak muscle on his body) and thus not being a real infighter

^^^^^ That pretty much sums it up nicely! It's kind of counter-intuitive really since Tyson's build and reach were pretty much tailor made for infighting.....at least until one views it from Tyson's perspective rather than the "textbook" perspective and then it makes perfect sense.


i have the advantage of being a few hours ahead in timezone haha

Yeah, that three hour time-lag rears it's ugly head again :hah9:

Poet

talip bin osman
05-09-2011, 12:28 AM
In terms of textbook punching Joe Louis and Ricardo Lopez spring too mind

i cant remember finito engage in the pocket... but u really cant go wrong with him... he has had a wide array of offensive tools...

JAB5239
05-09-2011, 05:40 AM
In terms of textbook punching Joe Louis and Ricardo Lopez spring too mind

Throw Alexis Arguello in there too.