Who of those Boxers has the highest Boxing IQ?

[ИATAS]

Gotta say hopkins.

He's beating guys purely on his IQ at this point of his career. He beat Pascal twice basically not because of speed, or power or great reflexes but because of his ring smarts.

floyd comes second but he's still beating everyone because he's a better boxer, he's faster, has great reflexes, etc. etc. etc. he has physical advantages over these guys he's beating.

[edgarg]

Who of those 4 Boxers has the highest Boxing IQ/Ring intelligence?
Vote on the Poll.
All of those 4 have shown great ring intelligence in the past. It's not easy to make a decision.
(For those who are only interested in what's going on in boxing today, do me a favor and check out "The Fighting Marine" Gene Tunney before you vote on the poll)

From the look of the poll they obviously didn't. I didn't either, because I already knew quite a bit about him, and voted for him. The way he was beaten up by Harry Greb, and their other matches he returned the compliment was enough for me, apart from knowing how easily he beat several other top fighter. Also, he was never afraid to punch it out with the best ofthem when neccessary. You could have added Vitaly klitschko to that group also.

[raskat]

From the look of the poll they obviously didn't. I didn't either, because I already knew quite a bit about him, and voted for him. The way he was beaten up by Harry Greb, and their other matches he returned the compliment was enough for me, apart from knowing how easily he beat several other top fighter. Also, he was never afraid to punch it out with the best ofthem when neccessary. You could have added Vitaly klitschko to that group also.

Tunney has probably the highest boxing IP ever. Dude could punch also, he had a higher KO ratio than Jack Dempsey. A true scientist in the ring at a time when most champions were brawlers...
Glad to see somebody appreciating the real old school scientists

[edgarg]

Tunney has probably the highest boxing IP ever. Dude could punch also, he had a higher KO ratio than Jack Dempsey. A true scientist in the ring at a time when most champions were brawlers...
Glad to see somebody appreciating the real old school scientists

Well most of the posters on here don't have any idea of anyone before colour Youtube videos came into being. They think that because Jesse Owens was regarded as the top runner in the 1936 Olympics, and for quite a while after, and some other runner today with legs twice as long, and far better nutrition, training, equipment and tracks can make a much better time, and because Basket ball players are better generally today than years ago, that boxing must have evolved the same way.

Well, that's the thing about boxing. Once boxing came out of the bareknuckle stand up and slug era, it progressed VERY rapidly and within 10 years, it could be said that boxers could easily have been as good then as then, which havhey are today. Fast feet and hands and head movement were not invented only 20 years ago.And there were many punches and tactics then which have been forgotten or neglected today, which would make fighters much better. Even assuming for the larger size of fighters today, this is only so because they don't have to weigh in just before the fight, as was the case in earlier years. So you have to compare todays, say, middleweights with yesteryears welterweights, and in some cases even lightweights.

I don't recall ever hearing of a 6'1" or 6'2" weltereight like Tommy Hearns in those years, They were all around 5'8" or so, give or take an inch. Sam Langford was 5'7" and he fought heavyweights, Barbados Joe Walcott was 5'2" and he was the welter champ for years. The famous Benny Leonard was about 5'4" or 5'5", and the Old Master Joe Gans was about 5'6". And although properly proportioned lightweights, fought welterweight titleholders when the occasion arose. No doubt if they'd trained for it, and could weigh in nearly 2 days before, they could have made featherweight, a whole 9 lbs lower.

There was no talk of "...well he's too big for me...." it was about whether there was a rivalry, a fan demand, and whether it would make a good fight. There are many examples. A good small fighter could, not always mind, find a way to compensate for a bigger, heavier punching opponent.
They wouldn't be scared to be "caught on the ropes, like today's guys. They learned and KNEW how to fight off the ropes, and could turn an opponent like a top when needed.

The only ones who are really different today are the mostly very tall cruiserweights and the extra-large heavyweights, not because there were no large men then, but because today's large men are generally faster, and more often punch their weight, that the past generations, for whom extre height and weight, were a handicap.. Jack Johnson, "The Galveston Giant" was only 6'1.5"............

Just my opinion.

[edgarg]

Well most of the posters on here don't have any idea of anyone before colour Youtube videos came into being. They think that because Jesse Owens was regarded as the top runner in the 1936 Olympics, and for quite a while after, and some other runner today with legs twice as long, and far better nutrition, training, equipment and tracks can make a much better time, and because Basket ball players are better generally today than years ago, that boxing must have evolved the same way.

Well, that's the thing about boxing. Once boxing came out of the bareknuckle stand up and slug era, it progressed VERY rapidly and within 10 years, it could be said that boxers could easily have been as good then as then, which havhey are today. Fast feet and hands and head movement were not invented only 20 years ago.And there were many punches and tactics then which have been forgotten or neglected today, which would make fighters much better. Even assuming for the larger size of fighters today, this is only so because they don't have to weigh in just before the fight, as was the case in earlier years. So you have to compare todays, say, middleweights with yesteryears welterweights, and in some cases even lightweights.

I don't recall ever hearing of a 6'1" or 6'2" weltereight like Tommy Hearns in those years, They were all around 5'8" or so, give or take an inch. Sam Langford was 5'7" and he fought heavyweights, Barbados Joe Walcott was 5'2" and he was the welter champ for years. The famous Benny Leonard was about 5'4" or 5'5", and the Old Master Joe Gans was about 5'6". And although properly proportioned lightweights, fought welterweight titleholders when the occasion arose. No doubt if they'd trained for it, and could weigh in nearly 2 days before, they could have made featherweight, a whole 9 lbs lower.

There was no talk of "...well he's too big for me...." it was about whether there was a rivalry, a fan demand, and whether it would make a good fight. There are many examples. A good small fighter could, not always mind, find a way to compensate for a bigger, heavier punching opponent.
They wouldn't be scared to be "caught on the ropes, like today's guys. They learned and KNEW how to fight off the ropes, and could turn an opponent like a top when needed.

The only ones who are really different today are the mostly very tall cruiserweights and the extra-large heavyweights, not because there were no large men then, but because today's large men are generally faster, and more often punch their weight, that the past generations, for whom extre height and weight, were a handicap.. Jack Johnson, "The Galveston Giant" was only 6'1.5"............

Just my opinion.

Sorry, meant compare yesterday's middleweights with today's welterweights.

[SCtrojansbaby]

What ever the maximum ring IQ is B-Hop and Floyd have it. Its a little early but pretty sure Ward has it also

[*2TOUGH*]

Mayweathers brain is AMAZING in terms of boxing! most students in college or boxing are manufactured. So they are effective to some degree, and can get by. But Mayweather is like a Microsoft programmer! A GURU!!