Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is the Greatest Defensive Fighter of All Time?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Niccholino Locche
    Julio Cesar Chavez Sr had some great defense
    Floyd Mayweather Jr.
    Pernell Whitaker

    Comment


    • ... I'm glad that people here still remember Whitaker and Pep, and vote for them...

      Comment


      • I’d say Josie Harris is.

        Although she suffered brutal blows from the hands of Floyd, she didn’t KO’d. So she must have had some slick defense to withstand a boxers punches when she’s just a normal female citizen.

        Comment


        • It is outright hilarious that people voted for willie pep when his last fight was in 1966. Everything we've read suggests he was an amazing defensive fighter, but unless you watched boxing from 1940-1966, I don't know how you can vote for him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Big Dunn View Post
            It is outright hilarious that people voted for willie pep when his last fight was in 1966. Everything we've read suggests he was an amazing defensive fighter, but unless you watched boxing from 1940-1966, I don't know how you can vote for him.
            For me, it’s a toss up between Floyd, “Sweet Pea” and Pep. While Mayweather is the greatest overall boxer between them, it’s hard to say who had the best pure defensive talent and skills. I wound up voting for Willie. I’ve read about him, and watched enough footage to make an informed opinion. Since I consider these three so close in ability, my vote was swayed by other factors. Pep had a much longer career than the others, and he came decades earlier. In one way or another, the more contemporary fighters must’ve been influenced by him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CubanGuyNYC View Post
              For me, it’s a toss up between Floyd, “Sweet Pea” and Pep. While Mayweather is the greatest overall boxer between them, it’s hard to say who had the best pure defensive talent and skills. I wound up voting for Willie. I’ve read about him, and watched enough footage to make an informed opinion. Since I consider these three so close in ability, my vote was swayed by other factors. Pep had a much longer career than the others, and he came decades earlier. In one way or another, the more contemporary fighters must’ve been influenced by him.
              I got a ton of respect for you as a poster but that is crazy to me. I caught the tail end of Ali's career and was born well after Pep died. While I saw all of Pea and Floyd. It is just impossible for me to consider Ali or Pep having not seen them in their prime and not really being able to gauge how good their defense was.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Big Dunn View Post
                I got a ton of respect for you as a poster but that is crazy to me. I caught the tail end of Ali's career and was born well after Pep died. While I saw all of Pea and Floyd. It is just impossible for me to consider Ali or Pep having not seen them in their prime and not really being able to gauge how good their defense was.
                There are decades of great athletes to be considered in every sport, not just boxing. If you live long enough, some young boxing fan will use the same rationale you’re using with regards to Mayweather and Whitaker to argue that a fighter of their generation is better. Will you agree with them then? If you ask me who the greatest baseball player was, I’d say Babe Ruth — and most knowledgable aficionados will agree. Yet, few are left that actually saw Ruth play. We have written accounts and footage to rely on. But, most importantly (in baseball, at least), stats. Why should boxing be any different? If you never saw Robinson, or Ali, or Pep fight live, does that mean they can’t be considered? There are available tools to help you form an opinion.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CubanGuyNYC
                  There are decades of great athletes to be considered in every sport, not just boxing. If you live long enough, some young boxing fan will use the same rationale you’re using with regards to Mayweather and Whitaker to argue that a fighter of their generation is better. Will you agree with them then? If you ask me who the greatest baseball player was, I’d say Babe Ruth — and most knowledgable aficionados will agree. Yet, few are left that actually saw Ruth play. We have written accounts and footage to rely on. But, most importantly (in baseball, at least), stats. Why should boxing be any different? If you never saw Robinson, or Ali, or Pep fight live, does that mean they can’t be considered? There are available tools to help you form an opinion.
                  For me I think you need to see them live to really be able to weigh in. I completely understand your point, its just hard for me to argue for someone that I didn't really see. Also the technology is so inferior from those days that its hard to get areal sense of what happened.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MDPopescu View Post
                    ... ???

                    Pernell “Sweet Pea” Whitaker
                    Muhammad "The Greatest" Ali
                    Floyd “Money” Mayweather Jr.
                    Bernard "The Executioner/The Alien" Hopkins
                    James “Lights Out” Toney
                    Guillermo “El Chacal” Rigondeaux
                    Vasyl "Hi-Tech" Lomachenko
                    Willie "Will o' the Wisp" Pep
                    Ray "Sugar" Leonard
                    Sugar Ray Robinson
                    Gene "The Fighting Marine" Tunney
                    Henry "Homicide Hank" Armstrong
                    Tyson Fury...

                    footwork....pep

                    head movement.....Whitaker


                    Mayweather.....most complete defense most options

                    inside defense-James Toney

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Big Dunn View Post
                      For me I think you need to see them live to really be able to weigh in. I completely understand your point, its just hard for me to argue for someone that I didn't really see. Also the technology is so inferior from those days that its hard to get areal sense of what happened.
                      It’s harder; I’ll agree on that. But the tools are out there to help you form an opinion. You have to get used to looking at some of the old footage. I’ve known younger people that simply can’t stand looking at black and white movies. (I love them.) I know it’s much the same for some boxing fans. It’s a shame, because there’s a lot of footage of almost all the fighters you read and hear about.

                      The truth is, even your memories of the fighters you’ve seen live can’t be trusted. You still have to rely on technology. As great as I remember Whitaker being, I found myself being more impressed or less impressed, from moment to moment, upon watching a highlight video someone posted here. Our memories are very selective. If you remember a fighter being awesome, your regard for them will generally only increase as time passes.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP