Pure Boxers Have Always Ruled Boxing
Collapse
-
Again are you sure about that? You the one saying SRR was a pure boxer for the most part and I don't **** about boxing?

Explain how SRR was for the most part a pure boxer?Comment
-
What did you have to finish. You said sluggers don't draw crowds.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
-
Comment
-
roy's stance was not a pure boxing stance, he often hung his head over his feet, he kept his hands very low and punched from unconventional angles. That is not a pure boxer you dingleberry. Would you say Sergio martinez is a pure boxer as well?????? I hope not.All the fighters I named, even De La Hoya, are what I consider the heirs to Ray Robinson. All of these fighters fought in a pure boxing tradition that emphasized being good at everything, every skill, not just one. All of these fighters were good with speed, offense, defense, and had god gifted abilities. All of them fought behind their jabs, and only those who listen to the so called experts will say that Roy didn't fight behind his jab, that would be incorrect.
Roy had a very good jab and he used it often. Just cause he was fast enough to land lead left hooks doesn't mean he didn't use or develop his jab. Floyd either leads with the jab or the left hook as well. Its just another wrinkle in their game.
Also what the hell are categories like boxer puncher, puncher boxer etc...??? All around skills is what they have. Brawlers, sluggers, are generally limited at what they can do, and that is part of why they never achieve the fame and popularity of the all around pure boxers.Comment
-
I agree. That's why Pernell Whitaker was the biggest draw of his era.
If you mention Sweet Pea to a casual fan they always know everything about his career and how much money he made. When you mention Tyson, they are like "isn't that the guy Lewis KO'd?".
Last edited by Boxin'; 05-18-2010, 02:20 PM.Comment
Comment