Who is the Greatest Defensive Fighter of All Time?

In fact, the same Bleacher Report "25 Best Defensive Boxers in History" article has Sugar ray Robinson at #3, Floyd and Whitaker at #2 (ex equo), and Willie Pep at #1... So you or who you’re referring to, just looked something up online and repeated it, instead of their own list??! Lmao so u just look crap up online and take it from there? No actual genuine info? Just taking the internets word for it??!? Lmao! U dumb dumb

Welp, you can’t possibly know much when you only have Floyd’s butt hole on your mind 24/7. In fact, the same Bleacher Report "25 Best Defensive Boxers in History" article has Sugar ray Robinson at #3, Floyd and Whitaker at #2 (ex equo), and Willie Pep at #1...

It is outright hilarious that people voted for willie pep when his last fight was in 1966. Everything we've read suggests he was an amazing defensive fighter, but unless you watched boxing from 1940-1966, I don't know how you can vote for him. Welp, you can’t possibly know much when you only have Floyd’s butt hole on your mind 24/7.

I'd say Roberto Duran. He could stand so close and make you miss by a hair and then counter you hard, which is why I consider him the best ever. The others listed are great but they had to use a whole lot more movement to get it done while Duran did not. ... in fact, Bleacher Report had Duran at #24 in a "25 Best Defensive Boxers in History" article... tbh... :)

Why has the vote been made anonymous? ... because, in fact, I didn't bother to find out how to make it "transparent"... that's why...

Why has the vote been made anonymous?

For me I think you need to see them live to really be able to weigh in. I completely understand your point, its just hard for me to argue for someone that I didn't really see. Also the technology is so inferior from those days that its hard to get areal sense of what happened. It’s harder; I’ll agree on that. But the tools are out there to help you form an opinion. You have to get used to looking at some of the old footage. I’ve known younger people that simply can’t stand looking at black and white movies. (I love them.) I know it’s much the same for some boxing fans. It’s a shame, because there’s a lot of footage of almost all the fighters you read and hear about. The truth is, even your memories of the fighters you’ve seen live can’t be trusted. You still have to rely on technology. As great as I remember Whitaker being, I found myself being more impressed or less impressed, from moment to moment, upon watching a highlight video someone posted here. Our memories are very selective. If you remember a fighter being awesome, your regard for them will generally only increase as time passes.

... ??? :) Pernell “Sweet Pea” Whitaker Muhammad "The Greatest" Ali Floyd “Money” Mayweather Jr. Bernard "The Executioner/The Alien" Hopkins James “Lights Out” Toney Guillermo “El Chacal” Rigondeaux Vasyl "Hi-Tech" Lomachenko Willie "Will o' the Wisp" Pep Ray "Sugar" Leonard Sugar Ray Robinson Gene "The Fighting Marine" Tunney Henry "Homicide Hank" Armstrong Tyson Fury... footwork....pep head movement.....Whitaker Mayweather.....most complete defense most options inside defense-James Toney

There are decades of great athletes to be considered in every sport, not just boxing. If you live long enough, some young boxing fan will use the same rationale you’re using with regards to Mayweather and Whitaker to argue that a fighter of their generation is better. Will you agree with them then? If you ask me who the greatest baseball player was, I’d say Babe Ruth — and most knowledgable aficionados will agree. Yet, few are left that actually saw Ruth play. We have written accounts and footage to rely on. But, most importantly (in baseball, at least), stats. Why should boxing be any different? If you never saw Robinson, or Ali, or Pep fight live, does that mean they can’t be considered? There are available tools to help you form an opinion. For me I think you need to see them live to really be able to weigh in. I completely understand your point, its just hard for me to argue for someone that I didn't really see. Also the technology is so inferior from those days that its hard to get areal sense of what happened.

I got a ton of respect for you as a poster but that is crazy to me. I caught the tail end of Ali's career and was born well after Pep died. While I saw all of Pea and Floyd. It is just impossible for me to consider Ali or Pep having not seen them in their prime and not really being able to gauge how good their defense was. There are decades of great athletes to be considered in every sport, not just boxing. If you live long enough, some young boxing fan will use the same rationale you’re using with regards to Mayweather and Whitaker to argue that a fighter of their generation is better. Will you agree with them then? If you ask me who the greatest baseball player was, I’d say Babe Ruth — and most knowledgable aficionados will agree. Yet, few are left that actually saw Ruth play. We have written accounts and footage to rely on. But, most importantly (in baseball, at least), stats. Why should boxing be any different? If you never saw Robinson, or Ali, or Pep fight live, does that mean they can’t be considered? There are available tools to help you form an opinion.

I got a ton of respect for you as a poster but that is crazy to me. I caught the tail end of Ali's career and was born well after Pep died. While I saw all of Pea and Floyd. It is just impossible for me to consider Ali or Pep having not seen them in their prime and not really being able to gauge how good their defense was. There are decades of great athletes to be considered in every sport, not just boxing. If you live long enough, some young boxing fan will use the same rationale you’re using with regards to Mayweather and Whitaker to argue that a fighter of their generation is better. Will you agree with them then? If you ask me who the greatest baseball player was, I’d say Babe Ruth — and most knowledgable aficionados will agree. Yet, few are left that actually saw Ruth play. We have written accounts and footage to rely on. But, most importantly (in baseball, at least), stats. Why should boxing be any different? If you never saw Robinson, or Ali, or Pep fight live, does that mean they can’t be considered? There are available tools to help you form an opinion.

For me, it’s a toss up between Floyd, “Sweet Pea” and Pep. While Mayweather is the greatest overall boxer between them, it’s hard to say who had the best pure defensive talent and skills. I wound up voting for Willie. I’ve read about him, and watched enough footage to make an informed opinion. Since I consider these three so close in ability, my vote was swayed by other factors. Pep had a much longer career than the others, and he came decades earlier. In one way or another, the more contemporary fighters must’ve been influenced by him. I got a ton of respect for you as a poster but that is crazy to me. I caught the tail end of Ali's career and was born well after Pep died. While I saw all of Pea and Floyd. It is just impossible for me to consider Ali or Pep having not seen them in their prime and not really being able to gauge how good their defense was.

It is outright hilarious that people voted for willie pep when his last fight was in 1966. Everything we've read suggests he was an amazing defensive fighter, but unless you watched boxing from 1940-1966, I don't know how you can vote for him. For me, it’s a toss up between Floyd, “Sweet Pea” and Pep. While Mayweather is the greatest overall boxer between them, it’s hard to say who had the best pure defensive talent and skills. I wound up voting for Willie. I’ve read about him, and watched enough footage to make an informed opinion. Since I consider these three so close in ability, my vote was swayed by other factors. Pep had a much longer career than the others, and he came decades earlier. In one way or another, the more contemporary fighters must’ve been influenced by him.

It is outright hilarious that people voted for willie pep when his last fight was in 1966. Everything we've read suggests he was an amazing defensive fighter, but unless you watched boxing from 1940-1966, I don't know how you can vote for him.

I’d say Josie Harris is. Although she suffered brutal blows from the hands of Floyd, she didn’t KO’d. So she must have had some slick defense to withstand a boxers punches when she’s just a normal female citizen.

... I'm glad that people here still remember Whitaker and Pep, and vote for them... :)

Niccholino Locche Julio Cesar Chavez Sr had some great defense Floyd Mayweather Jr. Pernell Whitaker

... besides CompuBox there exists another interesting webpage: https://boxstat.co/

At least it’s a system with some framework, as opposed to just going by feel or impressions. That's exactly what they're going by. I don't even know what you're talking about. Compubox is controlled by exactly what your describing. The computer isn't watching and deciding which punches are landing. People are.

I would say the guy who was hit the least. Which is floyd. But the sport has so much more history pre compubox , I mean unless you are sitting with a punch counter and watching every fight of all time u are seriously selling the topic short . Nicholino locche should be mentioned . But we wont know unless we sit and count etc . With alot of these guys . The great willie pep included . I actually give the trailblazers a little more credit. U ever seen a joe gans fight ?? I give credit to the defensive wizards of the more face first eras that involved more grappling etc. They were doing something no one had done yet . And altho their styles could look odd to boxing eyes of today without these guys boxing may not be called the sweet science . It would still be more of a fight or brawl if u will . Kudos to the trailblazers . They arent getting enuff mention here . Gene tunney deserves a mention as well with all the all time heavyweight talk , an extremely fluid sound defensive fighter and the Same on the front foot . Gene tunney is criminally under rated as a fighter in general .