Modern pure boxers.

[Left Hook Tua]

boxing in its purest form vs. a much bigger, stronger brawler

[Scipio2009]

Andre Ward.

Wherever a fight can possibly take place, Ward keeps his wits about him and still boxes beautifully.

For all the love that folks here want to put on Pacquiao, if the fight comes in from being at range, all Pacquiao has shown himself willing to do is throw on the earmuffs and turtle up.

[Left Hook Tua]

Postol off the top of my head




Maidana.

i've seen 1 postol fight and too much clinching

maidana is a brawler to me

[Real King Kong]

I'd go with this, even if he is faded but I want to see the TS' criteria, because many people on this forum believe a pure boxer is a defensive fighter only.

Pacquiaos is not technically or fundamentally sound. He makes up for it with speed and power.

[_original_]

Rigondeaux and Lomachenko are the best current examples in my opinion.

[Helm]

Lomachenko

[Sparked_26]

Something about the upright European style makes me think boxer straight away.

Textbook jab, solid and straight back hand.

In short.

Brian Rose.

[Beercules]

i've seen 1 postol fight and too much clinching

maidana is a brawler to me

Postol can box, I was just joking with Maidana; he is a brawler

[alexguiness]

Crawford for me.

Or Rios...

[boxinghead530]

the convention on this forum seems to be: counter puncher out boxer with feather fists.
i think pure boxer should be one who can take on all aspects of boxing. infighting, slugging, outboxing, average power, counter punch etc..

I agree with you sir. To me pure boxing is just like you said. Someone who can do it all. Be able to hit and not get hit, be able to slug it out, be able to infight, be able to keep it on the outside, be able to utilitize defense, be able to be offensive. Just be able to do it all. Not just Hit and not be hit.

I guess ill green K you since you are asking to be.