Most complete active fighters in the sport?

[Showtime..]

A lot of those are not complete fighters, Golovkin has not shown that he can fight off the back foot because no one has been able to force him back. The few times that Stevens did, Golovkin didn't look too good.

Thurman hasn't shown that he can fight on the inside, Thurman is more mid range, with pretty decent boxing ability from the outside.

Pacquiao isn't complete either.

Kell Brook can't fight on the inside, he can neutralize your game up close but can't get off there.

Lomachenko, Salido already proved he isn't complete when Lomachenko opted to hold up close.

You even mentioned Murray and Kovalev

Sneak in Pacquiao doe?

By that logic neither is Floyd or Rigo because their combo game is weak.

[King_]

It was your line of reasoning. You'll understand if I'm having a little difficulty tuning in to your wavelength.

So if it's not the number of bouts (as you originally specified, but you can change it up, I'm cool with that) and it's more the level of opponent, then Khan has a win over Kindelan on his resume.

Would that make Amir a complete fighter?

Okay sorry, I worded that wrong.


What I meant was you don't have over 300 amateur wins, against the level of opposition that Kovalev and GGG have had (and win not by KO) and not have boxing ability.


The Amir Khan comment doesn't even make sense.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Having "boxing ability" and being a complete fighter are two different things

[King_]

Having "boxing ability" and being a complete fighter are two different things

It's not as simple as "boxing ability"



Kovalev and Golovkin have elite boxing skills. They can fight on the inside and the outside. Combine that with their constant KO's. Those two have the most complete skill-sets in the sport, but this is just my opinion. Many, many people agree with me, though

[Dirk Diggler UK]

It's not as simple as "boxing ability"



Kovalev and Golovkin have elite boxing skills. They can fight on the inside and the outside. Combine that with their constant KO's. Those two have the most complete skill-sets in the sport, but this is just my opinion. Many, many people agree with me, though

Uhhh....yeah, this thread sure is evidence of that

They've both only ever shown one dimension and one style of fighting. Your opinion has very little merit.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Sneak in Pacquiao doe?

By that logic neither is Floyd or Rigo because their combo game is weak.

Not at all, Pacquiao doesn't have an inside game and he can't apply pressure without lunging in because his ability to cut off the ring isn't great. This is why Katsidis and Juan Diaz had more success putting Marquez against the ropes than Pacquiao did.

Pacquiao isn't a complete fighter, in fact he has never been seen as such. Doesn't mean he isn't great or elite because he is but he doesn't have those attributes. As for the bold, it may not be strong but it certainly isn't weak, that's just false.

[King_]

Uhhh....yeah, this thread sure is evidence of that

They've both only ever shown one dimension and one style of fighting. Your opinion has very little merit.

Did you not read the post I told you to?


They HAD to fight like this. Look what happened to Wlad. Do you think PAC would of been as popular as he was had he fought like Floyd or Wlad?

If you don't have a lot of countrymen supporting you in the United States, it doesn't matter how good of a boxer you are (uhhh.... Rigo?) you HAVE to fight how Kovalev/Pac/Golovkin fights otherwise you will never make it to "stardom" or get big fights like how Kovalev is now against Hopkins.


There simply isn't enough Russian and Kazakh boxing fans in the United States to put GGG/Kovalev on the map for their "boxing skills." They had no choice but to seek and destroy and Abel Sanchez himself said they had to change Golovkins style around because it was their only way to make him popular.

[Showtime..]

Not at all, Pacquiao doesn't have an inside game and he can't apply pressure without lunging in because his ability to cut off the ring isn't great. This is why Katsidis and Juan Diaz had more success putting Marquez against the ropes than Pacquiao did.

Pacquiao isn't a complete fighter, in fact he has never been seen as such. Doesn't mean he isn't great or elite because he is but he doesn't have those attributes. As for the bold, it may not be strong but it certainly isn't weak, that's just false.

Floyd's used to be very good but he's regressed quite a lot offensively.
And please, Rigo's game is weak. All he does is catch you perfectly clean after you've missed 6 punches in a row ala Donaire.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Floyd's used to be very good but he's regressed quite a lot offensively.
And please, Rigo's game is weak. All he does is catch you perfectly clean after you've missed 6 punches in a row ala Donaire.

I'm not calling Rigondeaux complete, not once have I ever called him that. Hasn't shown that he can sit in the pocket and Rigo has a lot of work to do before I can rate him.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Did you not read the post I told you to?


They HAD to fight like this. Look what happened to Wlad. Do you think PAC would of been as popular as he was had he fought like Floyd or Wlad?

If you don't have a lot of countrymen supporting you in the United States, it doesn't matter how good of a boxer you are (uhhh.... Rigo?) you HAVE to fight how Kovalev/Pac/Golovkin fights otherwise you will never make it to "stardom" or get big fights like how Kovalev is now against Hopkins.


There simply isn't enough Russian and Kazakh boxing fans in the United States to put GGG/Kovalev on the map for their "boxing skills." They had no choice but to seek and destroy and Abel Sanchez himself said they had to change Golovkins style around because it was their only way to make him popular.

Whether or not they're choosing to fight in a certain style is quite irrelevant.

They haven't proved they can fight another way. Only when they do can you label them "complete fighters". Knocking over a bunch of bums and overmatched opponents doesn't prove anything. One day, someone is going to ask questions of them.

Until then, your opinion that they're "complete fighters" is a very flimsy one. Especially when they've already shown flaws against poorer opposition.