Poll: Your Best Technical (Pure) Boxer Ever

[Mr Mitts]

"I could slip more punches and be more defensive ,but it bores me." Robinson.

I believe Robby could have fought identically to a Burley if he wanted to, the same way Auden was able to imitate Yeatsian mode to amazing perfection the one time he wanted to i.e. from the particular section from which I quoted below. Mozart could hear a melody once and play it back with variations. The Bach of pugilism could probably do miracles in boxing we never even got to see.

[billeau2]

In the introductory post I mentioned deep schooling. In those 40-50 words I also mentioned defense twice including defensive genius. I told you that is what it means to me. Combining that with the list of candidates gives a pretty clear picture of what I think. The two Leonards are the only guys on there with anything like a big punch.

But I can't tell you what a pure boxer is to you. But one should be able to ascertain that defense has to play a hugely important role. The 'not getting hit' part of the art.

To me Robinson may have done more things right than anyone as well. But one of the things he didn't do in the film he is captured in is to avoid getting hit a lot. He got hit a lot, at least as a middleweight. He wanted to fight too much. He wanted to end fights. He got in there a lot and got hit a lot. Sure, he knew how to slip, roll, parry, take steam off, dance...but Robinson still got hit a lot in my view. He even wanted to fight a little too much against Maxim, which I always thought lost him that fight. I do not consider Robinson a great ring general. His greatest application of defense may have been his deadly offense.

Best ever P4P? Maybe so. I have him top 5 at the least. But probably not in the top 30 for defense. He liked money, butts in the seats. Robinson slugged as much or more than he boxed. Sluggers get hit. He wanted to end fights as early as possible. He loved the celebrations, as everyone knows.

Your opinion about Robinson is thought out. It makes sense. My understanding of defense is a little different. I believe at some point a good defense becomes an offensive measure. If my opponent knows I will not hurt him he has no incentive to not go after me at will. To me this is primary. So to me a pure boxer does not imply a tendency towards defense anymore than something like counter punching.

Burley is an incredible specimen to watch... Whitaker as well... Jones, Toney, all IMO excellent boxers that show off the skills well. Many more as well! These are just a few that come to mind.

[billeau2]

"I could slip more punches and be more defensive ,but it bores me." Robinson.

Your post brings up an interesting issue: An analogy would be... Picasso Cubist, very abstract piece of work. Someone does not care for it and characterizes Pablo, whereupon someone else states the following: "You may not care for the Cubist works of Picasso but his capability to paint, including in a more conventional style was all time great level."

It can be said that Robinson choosing a means did not necessarily tell us entirely what he was capable of doing in the ring. Robinson no doubt felt a more exciting style would be an asset, and he was rumored to have a "blood lust" so to speak lol. Yet one can imagine a dedicated Robinson fighting defensively would still be a nightmare to face! of a different sort... But nevertheless...

[Bronson66]

Your opinion about Robinson is thought out. It makes sense. My understanding of defense is a little different. I believe at some point a good defense becomes an offensive measure. If my opponent knows I will not hurt him he has no incentive to not go after me at will. To me this is primary. So to me a pure boxer does not imply a tendency towards defense anymore than something like counter punching.

Burley is an incredible specimen to watch... Whitaker as well... Jones, Toney, all IMO excellent boxers that show off the skills well. Many more as well! These are just a few that come to mind.

As far as defence goes , perhaps Jack Johnson should be in the frame?

[Marchegiano]

Easy. You make the assertion that I reject any firsthand account. I don't know why you want to make something like that up when you know I didn't say it. I love the inkwell corps, but I do tend to like my own eyes just because they are mine. If the fantasy were true and I could really watch him fight, I would still read the inkwell boys, wouldn't I? Why not? I do it now with fighters I actually did watch the night before. I always want variety of viewpoint; helps keep me straight, since I make a lot of mistakes .

I have to admit that while I would trust them to write a better article than myself--it would not be as satisfying or as informative as my own eyes to me personally.

I can't figure why I would reject firsthand accounts when I am on here daily sorting through 10th hand accounts. I will wade through a lot of muck to fetch out a simple truth I can live with. I always appreciate it when someone else does some of that wading for me.

No, I do not think it makes me arrogant. Primarily because again it is what you said not what I said.

Okay, you reworded everything to make it your words. Which I assume will at least lift the semantics aspect of this.

I have to admit that while I would trust them to write a better article than myself--it would not be as satisfying or as informative as my own eyes to me personally.

At what level of credential do your eyes take a back seat? As in, if you see a foul and the ref doesn't call a foul then he's wrong? If you judge a match and the judges have it differently they must be wrong? Where is that for you?

[billeau2]

As far as defence goes , perhaps Jack Johnson should be in the frame?

!!! JJ would definitely fufil Mitts criteria... In Spades! JJ was thought to have been a major contributor to developing the jab from the lead (through pronation and mobility), to parrying actions which were very vital to preclassical boxing and... somewhat relevant to Modern boxing... Jones used JJ's parrying movements effectively (among others). JJ was a pure boxer, a defensive maestro who could hit like a mule...

[JeBron Lamez]

No Wlad in a poll of pure, technical boxers is a travesty.

[Mr Mitts]

Okay, you reworded everything to make it your words. Which I assume will at least lift the semantics aspect of this.



At what level of credential do your eyes take a back seat? As in, if you see a foul and the ref doesn't call a foul then he's wrong? If you judge a match and the judges have it differently they must be wrong? Where is that for you?

No level of credential replaces or supersedes my own eyes in the overall gestalt of a fight. That does not mean I know more than the experts and they cannot teach me something. It means no one can describe a fight to me better than I can see it. That is some goofy shit, son.. At what point does someone write about a fight better than you can see it? None.

Maybe I should let an expert listen to music for me too and just have them describe it later. After all, they know more about it than I do. Should be even better than actually listening, eh?

Like I already plainly said anyway, I watch first and read later about the fight as well. Pretty standard for the course. If I had to choose just one or the other I would watch the fight rather than have it described to me, the same as you or any other person on here would. I think it would be a silly denial from anyone.

Fouls elicit opinions of varying strength. I already know I will see some things the ref will not see simply because he is on the other side of the action sometimes. That is forced by the laws of perspective to be true.

You have essentially asked me: If you think a man is wrong, do you think he is wrong?

[Bronson66]

No level of credential replaces or supersedes my own eyes in the overall gestalt of a fight. That does not mean I know more than the experts and they cannot teach me something. It means no one can describe a fight to me better than I can see it. That is some goofy shit, son.. At what point does someone write about a fight better than you can see it? None.

Maybe I should let an expert listen to music for me too and just have them describe it later. After all, they know more about it than I do. Should be even better than actually listening, eh?

Like I already plainly said anyway, I watch first and read later about the fight as well. Pretty standard for the course. If I had to choose just one or the other I would watch the fight rather than have it described to me, the same as you or any other person on here would. I think it would be a silly denial from anyone.

Fouls elicit opinions of varying strength. I already know I will see some things the ref will not see simply because he is on the other side of the action sometimes. That is forced by the laws of perspective to be true.

You have essentially asked me: If you think a man is wrong, do you think he is wrong?

I always get friends to read books for me,watch films, and listen to music and tell me if I liked them afterwards,it gives me so much more time to post on here.
Just thought of a novel way to diet,instead of going to a restaurant for a nice meal,treat a friend and then ask him if you enjoyed it!

Television was a retrograde step after radio,imo.

Getting back to the subject,what do we think of this guy?
Apologies for the"music."

The Best Defensive Boxer of All Time Nicolino Locche

[Bronson66]

Your opinion about Robinson is thought out. It makes sense. My understanding of defense is a little different. I believe at some point a good defense becomes an offensive measure. If my opponent knows I will not hurt him he has no incentive to not go after me at will. To me this is primary. So to me a pure boxer does not imply a tendency towards defense anymore than something like counter punching.

Burley is an incredible specimen to watch... Whitaker as well... Jones, Toney, all IMO excellent boxers that show off the skills well. Many more as well! These are just a few that come to mind.

"defence always win in the end,if its good enough." Jack Johnson.