Is Mayweather the most well-rounded fighter ever?

[New England]

I didn't mean to strike such a nerve, but yes, white brawlers. Robinson got hit a great deal more than Floyd ever did, but he also scored many more KO's. Pick your poison.

If it wasn't for Hearns' crazy size advantage over most of the welterweights he wouldn't have been as succesful as he was. Even as he moved up and started fighting guys his own size, he started getting hurt a lot more and KTFO a lot more.

no he didnt

you dont know what the hell you are talking about, again
please watch tommy hearns fight at 154 and 160
still a monster


how you guys can even open your mouths when such ****** stuff comes out?

[Poet682006]

he was a bit more available to get tagged than floyd, but when you're that offensive and you're knocking guys out (and you have one of the best chin's ever on a boxer,) you're going to get hit at some point.

Oh but in *****ville having offense is BAD. Everything is turned on it's head and the Red Queen has proclaimed night day and day night.

Poet

[Brother Jay]

ray robinson
tommy hearns
ray leonard
ricardo lopez
marvin hagler
jose napoles
salvador sanchez
roberto duran
ezzard charles
larry holmes


want me to keep going?

floyd mayweather is a pure boxer, especially as a WW
it's really not that hard to find guys with more rounded skills if you know what you're looking for.

You must be out of your god damn mind.

You're one of those fans who thinks because fame is attached to a name that makes a fighter more than he really was.

Proof of that is the fact that you have nominated one dimensional fighters as well rounded.

Instant failure.

You're like one of those guys who calls Ali the greatest because Ali called himself the greatest. You can't think for yourself. So you simply start mentioning HOF's in hopes that everyone else will avoid challenging your shallow statements ... because speaking against men who are HOF's in some minds might be seen as "blasphemy".

Fcuk that.

Hagler is about as well rounded as Joe Frazier. Hearns about as much as Paul Williams.

Put the legend list down and back away as being a legend doesn't mean that a fighter was well rounded.

George Foreman is a legend, but he absolutely only did one this exceptionally: He hit like a fcuking bullet train. He was destroying the HW division before Ali upset him. Does that mean he was well rounded? Your logic is broken and desperate to discredit Mayweather because he does nearly everything well.

And let us not forget that Mayweather at the lower weights was knocking his opponent's out.

In the words of Roy Jones: You must've forgot.

You brain only allows you think that if you do something well, you must do it in huge numbers. European fencing operates under that same school of thought. You must be attacking and in a constant state of advance and retreat in a match.

However, Floyd Mayweather is more like the Japanese school of fencing: the economy of motion and energy. When he does something, it is with purpose. There is little to no superfluous punching or footwork. He waits for mistakes to be made, and when his opponents refuse to commit, he attacks to force them to retaliate which is a form of committing.

Its a game of quality over quantity. Look that up and broaden your understanding of the game. Only elite fighters can employ that kind of approach. They stand in front of their foes and pick them apart nearly effortlessly.

Kostya Tszyu was a lot like that. Especially in his amateur days when he was a defensive dynamo. Vic Darchinyan could be but his defense is lacking. Mike Tyson ... more specifically Iron Mike Tyson ... was, but he lacked the discipline to stay elite and began to rely solely on his punching power.

Ray Robinson was a gladiator, but that doesn't mean that he was even the most well rounded of his era. Ray would go to war and break his opponents down in wars that would eventually take toll on his mind and body. He was a master of attrition and a two fisted dynamo that never really cared much for a solid defense. But Robinson avoided Charley Burley for a reason.

Charley Burley IMO was much more well rounded than Robinson. I believe that Ray knew that as well. That's not to say that Burley would have beaten Ray, but as far as attribute and skill-sets go, Burley was more well rounded than Robinson hands down.

I'll say it again, go learn something about boxing. There are a lot of loud mouth peasants on this site that think that the ruder they are, the more right they are.

Don't be one of them.

[Poet682006]

how you guys can even open your mouths when such ****** stuff comes out?

Because all they know is Floyd and Floyd is all.....welcome to the Lewis Carroll world of abject nuthuggery.

Poet

[New England]

Oh but in *****ville having offense is BAD. Everything is turned on it's head and the Red Queen has proclaimed night day and day night.

Poet

it's a bizarre place and i'm not sure how much longer i can stand it

i wish the history section wasn't so barren for these slow days at work,


this thread is so much more harmful than good

[Poet682006]

Blah blah blah......all those old dudes suck.....blah blah blah......Floyd made all the previous theories about boxing obsolete.....blah blah blah.....I want to trade places with Ellerbee.....blah blah blah.....I want to teabag Floyd.....

^^^^^ Oh THAT'S what you're trying to say :jerk0ff9:

[New England]

You must be out of your god damn mind.

You're one of those fans who thinks because fame is attached to a name that makes a fighter more than he really was.

Proof of that is the fact that you have nominated one dimensional fighters as well rounded.

Instant failure.

You're like one of those guys who calls Ali the greatest because Ali called himself the greatest. You can't think for yourself. So you simply start mentioning HOF's in hopes that everyone else will avoid challenging your shallow statements ... because speaking against men who are HOF's in some minds might be seen as "blasphemy".

Fcuk that.

Hagler is about as well rounded as Joe Frazier. Hearns about as much as Paul Williams.

Put the legend list down and back away as being a legend doesn't mean that a fighter was well rounded.

George Foreman is a legend, but he absolutely only did one this exceptionally: He hit like a fcuking bullet train. He was destroying the HW division before Ali upset him. Does that mean he was well rounded? Your logic is broken and desperate to discredit Mayweather because he does nearly everything well.

And let us not forget that Mayweather at the lower weights was knocking his opponent's out.

In the words of Roy Jones: You must've forgot.

You brain only allows you think that if you do something well, you must do it in huge numbers. European fencing operates under that same school of thought. You must be attacking and in a constant state of advance and retreat in a match.

However, Floyd Mayweather is more like the Japanese school of fencing: the economy of motion and energy. When he does something, it is with purpose. There is little to no superfluous punching or footwork. He waits for mistakes to be made, and when his opponents refuse to commit, he attacks to force them to retaliate which is a form of committing.

Its a game of quality over quantity. Look that up and broaden your understanding of the game. Only elite fighters can employ that kind of approach. They stand in front of their foes and pick them apart nearly effortlessly.

Kostya Tszyu was a lot like that. Especially in his amateur days when he was a defensive dynamo. Vic Darchinyan could be but his defense is lacking. Mike Tyson ... more specifically Iron Mike Tyson ... was, but he lacked the discipline to stay elite and began to rely solely on his punching power.

Ray Robinson was a gladiator, but that doesn't mean that he was even the most well rounded of his era. Ray would go to war and break his opponents down in wars that would eventually take toll on his mind and body. He was a master of attrition and a two fisted dynamo that never really cared much for a solid defense. But Robinson avoided Charley Burley for a reason.

Charley Burley IMO was much more well rounded than Robinson. I believe that Ray knew that as well. That's not to say that Burley would have beaten Ray, but as far as attribute and skill-sets go, Burley was more well rounded than Robinson hands down.

I'll say it again, go learn something about boxing. There are a lot of loud mouth peasants on this site that think that the ruder they are, the more right they are.

Don't be one of them.

christ
you literally have to read one line of some of these posts to tell who is a complete idiot



you do not know boxing.
even worse, you go at it with a sense of entitlement


i keep my own council on fighters
i build off of the knowledge of others (as anybody should with anything,) but in the end if keep my own council on my evaluation of a fighter

you've clearly never read a book about the history of the sport in your life
you'll find robinson to be the CONSENSUS most complete (IE well rounded) fighter of all time

that's fact and not opinion. i'm not saying it means i'll automatically agree with them on those grounds (which i happen to in this case,)
that's the consensus among true historians of the sport

and you dont even think he's the most well rounded of his era?
and that charley burley (a well rounded fighter in his own right and a finisher, but much more the pure boxer and slickster robinson, who could go from slick boxer to axemurder in the same round.)

[Poet682006]

it's a bizarre place and i'm not sure how much longer i can stand it

i wish the history section wasn't so barren for these slow days at work,

this thread is so much more harmful than good

No ****. Reading some of these nuthugging fan-bois spin their way into high rotation makes me wonder how they manage to survive in the real world without being taken out and shot for ******ity.

Poet

[Poet682006]

christ
you literally have to read one line of some of these posts to tell who is a complete idiot
we ought to start making you guys wear scarlet "I's"


you do not know boxing.
even worse, you go at it with a sense of entitlement

What you want to bet the moron's seen all of TWO Hagler fights in his life: Hearns and Leonard :rolleyes9:

[rambov]

You must be out of your god damn mind.

You're one of those fans who thinks because fame is attached to a name that makes a fighter more than he really was.

Proof of that is the fact that you have nominated one dimensional fighters as well rounded.

Instant failure.

You're like one of those guys who calls Ali the greatest because Ali called himself the greatest. You can't think for yourself. So you simply start mentioning HOF's in hopes that everyone else will avoid challenging your shallow statements ... because speaking against men who are HOF's in some minds might be seen as "blasphemy".

Fcuk that.

Hagler is about as well rounded as Joe Frazier. Hearns about as much as Paul Williams.

Put the legend list down and back away as being a legend doesn't mean that a fighter was well rounded.

George Foreman is a legend, but he absolutely only did one this exceptionally: He hit like a fcuking bullet train. He was destroying the HW division before Ali upset him. Does that mean he was well rounded? Your logic is broken and desperate to discredit Mayweather because he does nearly everything well.

And let us not forget that Mayweather at the lower weights was knocking his opponent's out.

In the words of Roy Jones: You must've forgot.

You brain only allows you think that if you do something well, you must do it in huge numbers. European fencing operates under that same school of thought. You must be attacking and in a constant state of advance and retreat in a match.

However, Floyd Mayweather is more like the Japanese school of fencing: the economy of motion and energy. When he does something, it is with purpose. There is little to no superfluous punching or footwork. He waits for mistakes to be made, and when his opponents refuse to commit, he attacks to force them to retaliate which is a form of committing.

Its a game of quality over quantity. Look that up and broaden your understanding of the game. Only elite fighters can employ that kind of approach. They stand in front of their foes and pick them apart nearly effortlessly.

Kostya Tszyu was a lot like that. Especially in his amateur days when he was a defensive dynamo. Vic Darchinyan could be but his defense is lacking. Mike Tyson ... more specifically Iron Mike Tyson ... was, but he lacked the discipline to stay elite and began to rely solely on his punching power.

Ray Robinson was a gladiator, but that doesn't mean that he was even the most well rounded of his era. Ray would go to war and break his opponents down in wars that would eventually take toll on his mind and body. He was a master of attrition and a two fisted dynamo that never really cared much for a solid defense. But Robinson avoided Charley Burley for a reason.

Charley Burley IMO was much more well rounded than Robinson. I believe that Ray knew that as well. That's not to say that Burley would have beaten Ray, but as far as attribute and skill-sets go, Burley was more well rounded than Robinson hands down.

I'll say it again, go learn something about boxing. There are a lot of loud mouth peasants on this site that think that the ruder they are, the more right they are.

Don't be one of them.

You can't make sense to these guys. He actually said that Larry Holmes was well rounded.