The most complete all-round fighter of all time?

Evening, chaps.

We've all got our own preferences when it comes to styles. Some guys are just born to fight in a certain way because, while they're exceptional in one or two areas, they're average - maybe even poor - is most of the others, and they therefore have to tailor their game to fit around accentuating their strengths. And if they do a good enough job of focussing their game on these strengths, they can occasionally overcome men who have less apparent weaknesses across the board than them.

Look at Rocky Marciano, for example. Short, light, not particularly quick or athletic, a porous defence and not all that coordinated, either (as his own trainer Charley Goldman said, ''he's got two left feet.''). Technically speaking, he probably scored low in more areas than he scored high - but he made up for that by being not just 'high', but through the roof in those particular areas. He wasn't all that hot in many aspects, but in those that he was, he was superb. He had remarkable conditioning and durability along with crunching, blunt-force trauma power which allowed him to overcome men who, from the outset, were more talented and rounded than him.

Then take someone like Miguel Canto. The antithesis of Marciano; balance, head movement, defensive artistry, deft footwork, speed, timing, fluidity etc. His problem was that he couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. Unable to deter opponents and get them on the back foot, he ran the risk of being overpowered if an opponent could get close to him for any amount of time, and was susceptible to unfavourable cards from judges who favoured aggression and power, occasionally losing a disputed verdict here and there as a result. Even in victory there were examples of this - in his rematch against Betulio Gonzalez, which ninety-nine percent of onlookers regarded as a boxing clinic handed out by Canto, one of the judges somehow found a way to score it in Gonzalez's favour.  

What about a guy like Terry Norris? Unlike Marciano and Canto, from a purely physical / talent perspective he had the best of both worlds. Blurring hand speed, reflexes, technical skills, footwork, balance, ability to be the elusive matador or the aggressor and hard punching power on top of all that. But it was the intangibles which let him down - his chin was less than fortified to put it mildly, and he lacked ring IQ severely (as well as being a bit of a hot head) as his defeats to Simon Brown and Keith Mullings demonstrated; when Norris got hurt, he had little to no survival instincts and seemed to repeat the same kind of mistakes in his losses, over and over again. In today's game, Jorge Linares is a decent equivalent to 'Terrible Terry.' He's got  all the ability, but just lacks that hardness and that ability to swallow his pride and do what it takes to just survive when hurt, perfectly demonstrated in his loss to Antonioo DeMarco in 2011.

There's no such thing as a totally perfect and one hundred percent complete fighter - even Ray Robinson's slight deficiency (or perceived deficiency) in the area of inside fighting gets highlighted from time to time - but as with all things in life, there have been guys that've come closer than most to that kind of mantle. So I'm asking: who, in your opinion, is the most complete fighter there's ever been?

There might have been guys with more textbook fundamentals, harder hitters, better defenders, guys who were quicker, who had better footwork, who were tougher and more durable, who fought either on the outside or the inside better, men who had higher ring IQ - but who has combined every aspect of the sweet science, in the sense of having a little bit of EVERYTHING in one way or another in terms of style, being able to fight all kinds of fights, being able to hit without getting hit, having a mix of power and guile etc?

I'll get it out there - the young Floyd Mayweather, as a Super-Feather, Light and Light-Welterweight, deserves consideration for any elite group in that respect. He's still pound for pound number one even now, but the Mayweather of 1998 to 2005 at the lower weights was a more damaging puncher than he's been at Welterweight upwards, was a shade quicker, sat down on his combinations more etc.

What about a peak Ray Leonard? Not the defensive genuis that Mayweather is, but super-fast, a stunning attacking fighter with a great chin and the ability to adapt and mimmick an opponent's style, often doing it just as well as them - he outboxed the mercurial Benitez is a technical chess match, went brawler in the championship rounds to take out a bigger puncher in Thomas Hearns and took on Duran in a phone booth in Montreal, albeit it yielded a loss (avenged later on, mind you).

Jose Napoles, a venemous hitter with a great chin, but also a tactician of the highest order with beutiful, text book form and technique - his only weakness being a tendency to cut. Gene Tunney was one of the better early frontrunners, of course. Then there's Ezzard Charles, while many still marvel at Eder Jofre's ability to cover all bases in his pomp. Since then, a Light-Heavyweight Michael Spinks, Ricardo Lopez or maybe even a Guillermo Rigondeaux today - all of them have had the title of being the 'complete' fighter bestowed upon them at one time or another. Not everyone agrees, but they've at least been in the discussion.

But of the names mentioned, who strikes you as being the most complete and infallible? Who do you think was / is best protected from losing, when at their very best, to any other fighter in or around their weight class in history? Who was / is best set to excel in a variety of different ways and against all sorts of different styles? And if it's none of the above nemaes that would get your vote, who would?

Let me know if you've got an opinion, lads. Cheers.

Of the guys I have seen enough of to make a relatively informed decision I would always plump for Leonard in such a debate. Brilliant speed, a good chin, more than respectable power, good ring intellect and a bit of a nasty streak to him, as the Green finish demonstrated (still probably my favourite ever combination). Add into that no shortage of heart or guts and you can’t ask for much more. As you have said perhaps not Floyd’s equal defensively, but I’d sacrifice a bit in that department to have Ray’s offensive arsenal.
 
If you want to go back a few years and add in a guy you have not mentioned you could do worse than put Benny Leonard’s name forward, probably trumps his namesake in the defensive stakes and frequently billed as the most thinking fighter of all time, it was, according to legend Benny who gave Tunney the formula to getting the better of Harry Greb. If there was a rap against Benny it was perhaps his lack of power, but this perhaps does him a disservice, when Benny needed to find a dig he had it in his locker. Remains the only guy to stop the freakishly tough Freddie Welsh. Terrific fighter, not sure what you would need to add to his arsenal to improve him greatly.

Hagler could box orthodox and southpaw..........Was happy boxing on the back foot (His performance against Sibson was a masterclass) and he was more than useful coming forward just ask Tommy..........Great chin...Great engine....

Only place he was lacking was between the ears...........

Expected big things from Bramble..............Box off either foot, great chin, great engine, good speed, shell like defence come forward......But he didn't like it up him.........

Rowley wrote:Of the guys I have seen enough of to make a relatively informed decision I would always plump for Leonard in such a debate. Brilliant speed, a good chin, more than respectable power, good ring intellect and a bit of a nasty streak to him, as the Green finish demonstrated (still probably my favourite ever combination). Add into that no shortage of heart or guts and you can’t ask for much more. As you have said perhaps not Floyd’s equal defensively, but I’d sacrifice a bit in that department to have Ray’s offensive arsenal.

Nothing to add to that really, his adaptability was second to none.

Good post, Jeff. Can't disagree with any of it. There's a reason (well, a few of them which you've echoed) why Ray Leonard was always going to be mentioned in the article. As for Benny, can definitely see a case for him, too. Agree that of the obvious things, it was only his power which could be deemed as something 'serviceable' or 'decent', but in most other aspects he was superb and ahead of his time.

I know you'll have seen it, but anyone who hasn't seen Benny's fight with Lew Tendler (their first one, where Leonard got the Newspaper Decision over twelve) should definitely check it out. Amazing footwork and defence from Benny in that one.

Seen Leonard - Mclarnin...........

He was a very good fighter for his time.........

Hagler certainly had all the physical tools, Truss. As you say though, his ring smarts did let him down from time to time and that probably keeps him out of the running here, at least for me.

I know we've had this discussion before, but I think Bramble was elevated a little too high in 1986 (as in being ranked number three pound for pound by The Ring for a while). But of course, easy for me to say because he's a fighter I've had to look back on in retrospect.

I absolutely love those two fights against Mancini, especially the first one. But even after softening Ray up in the first fight, and with him trailing off somewhat after the Duk Koo Kim tragedy, Bramble still had to go life and death with him to win the rematch. Rosario's only two defeats to that point had been a TKO loss to Ramirez, who he'd already outscored and who he had in dire straits early in that rematch, and Camacho, the fastest gun in the west at the time who'd almost certainly have been vanquished had it been a fifteen rounder instead of a twelve. Should it really have been such a huge upset when Rosario beat Bramble? As I said though, that was your era so appreciate the difference of opinion on Bramble.

Speaking of guys who fell apart in '86, though, Curry did look like the complete fighter by the time of the Colin Jones (my favourite) and McCrory fights. You can see in those fights how much he'd improved even from the Hwan contest, where he was already visibly very skilled and good. The way he dismantled Jones is very similar to how Napoles dominated Curtis Cokes in their first fight. Just an absolutely phenomenal performance.

I guess it depends on how much you buy in to the weight excuse when it comes to deciding whether or not Honeyghan highlighted and exploited all the faults in Don's game.

Ray Leonard for me.

Duran was also quite complete as a fighter. Gets the reputation of being a brawler but he cam be a crafty boxer too.

Perhaps in more recent times James Toney. He could do it all.

It's fair enough whichever way your view on curry v honey is........But two of the fighters that never got shots Breland and Starling......all thought Curry looked terrible..

(Vaca, Bumphus,Blocker, Hatcher and people call Floyd a cherrypicker...)

Both beat the crap out of him later on..........

The Curry that fought Mccallum beats the crap out of him.....Just my opinion.

Ray Leonard had everything speed, power, chin, stamina, great boxer and the ability to finish a fight early or late on, the nearest to a complete fighter IMO.

I can't take Toney as a complete fighter - he just wasn't dedicated enough. I am surprised that nobody's mentioned the earlier Roy Jones Junior (up until about the Clinton Woods fight) was simply untouchable. I for one have not seen talent like it either before or since. It's just such a shame he a) didn't/wouldn't/contractually couldn't fight Michalzewski and b) he's still fighting.

Shows how good Tommy was really doesn't it........

Outboxed Leonard twice.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Shows how good Tommy was really doesn't it........

Outboxed Leonard twice.........

It also shows how good Leonard was Dundee's words your blowing the fight kid, and Leonard took notice went out and and finished it.

Arguello

text book, movement, great chin and ko power.

Poor lateral movement and slow footed. Precise movement rather than good. Not quite as good as the names bandied above.

Lennox Lewis. Could do it all. Imagine boxing without weight classes. Who on this list could have outboxed Lennox?

I do think heavies get under appreciated in these threads sometimes. Showing such skill sets as Ali and Lewis whilst carting around a huge frame is no mean feat.

If Tommy Hearns had of maybe used his brain more and perhaps had a better chin, then he would be next to unbeatable as a welter/junior middle.

To be honest the closest I have seen to a perfect fighter in the last 20 or so years was peak Jones jr

Julio cesar chavez sr deserves a mention....................

I saw him box on the back foot against Ramirez and produce a clinic...........He came forward and destroyed Rosario.....

Great footwork...Great at cutting off the ring.....Great bodypuncher.....Great chin........Great engine.........and decent jab and right hand.........

Lance wrote:Lennox Lewis. Could do it all. Imagine boxing without weight classes. Who on this list could have outboxed Lennox?

I do think heavies get under appreciated in these threads sometimes. Showing such skill sets as Ali and Lewis whilst carting around a huge frame is no mean feat.

Lennox was a great athlete.he could fairly move for a bigman. Fantastic boxer.

Lance wrote:Lennox Lewis. Could do it all. Imagine boxing without weight classes. Who on this list could have outboxed Lennox?

I do think heavies get under appreciated in these threads sometimes. Showing such skill sets as Ali and Lewis whilst carting around a huge frame is no mean feat.

One of the reasons I have Ali number 1 in my list...............Because he is the greatest fighter ever.......6ft 3........ 220 ....Perfect fighting machine........Added to the fact he beat two/three guys who'd make mere mortals crap their pants.....

Robbo never had to see a Liston or Foreman staring at him across the wrong.................Now that is intimidation.............

Mayweather reigns till he's 60 he'll never knock Ali off top spot..

My dad says nothing will match what Ali did with Liston.

He says you have to be around then to truly appreciate how fantastic and scary Liston was.

The reason I hate all time lists, is because its hard to judge eras and too often people are swayed by opinion.

p4p I struggle to find anyone who could match Jones Jr. Mayweather is great but even he doesn't beat Jones for me on their best night.

Your Dad sounds like a good man............

Your real name isn't Rob is it ??

Always been a fan of the athletes. Roy Jones was magnificent. As was a 64-67 Ali. Had everything you could reasonably ask for in a fighter and more. His comeback also showed both adaptability to a changing body, and opposition not named Ken Norton. But 64-67, for every aspect of boxing - the footwork, footspeed, iron will, self belief, hunger, hand speed, reflexes... Almost superhuman, really.

Rob?

Sugar Shane Mosley was a great all rounder once upon a time, maybe just lacking a bit of craft that can separate the greats from the all time greats. Fast, powerful, skillful and a chin granite.

Sugar Shane didn't have a particularly great jab, I just can't put a fighter as a "complete" fighter without them having a world class jab. The only fight he ever truly showed a jab against a world class opponent was Margarito and he was slow as a Starfish.

Rigondeaux is a difficult guy to judge, he is clearly ridiculously skilled and has made a guy who was without doubt vying for a Top 100 ATG in Donaire look one dimensional. But he isn't exactly normal textbook but I suppose barely any other fighters could conceive of fighting how he fights.

Roy Jones I find is more of a physical phenomenon rather than boxer, he was sensational but think he mainly relied on reflexes, clearly a good reader of the game but think he simply made the best out of the attributes he had rather than being a complete boxer. After his speed went he went the same way rather than learning how to adapt like Floyd has.

Probably bias cos I watch a few clips of him recently but I would have to go for Ray Robinson.

Some great stuff here, fellas.

OneTwo, Arguello basically had the lot, as Shah said it was just his heavy feet which didn't really match up to the rest of his game. Defence so-so as well, I guess. But he hit like an absolute train, had ring intelligence, a solid chin, stamina and the full range of perfectly-executed shots; ramrod jab, the best straight right in the game, a body shot which could cut you in half (take a look at the knockout of Andy Ganigan, also a fight which shows his adaptability) and an often forgotten and underrated left hook as well.

If anyone's not seen it, take a look at his rematch with Alfredo Escalera. Amazing display of left hooking that Joe Frazier would have been proud of. He drops Escalera in the fifth (one of the rounds of the decade) with a left hand kind of similar to the one Robinson flattened Fullmer with, puts him over with the left again a little while later and ends the fight in the thirteenth with just about as picture-perfect a left hook as you can wish to see. Now THAT is how you hook off your jab. All-round outstanding fighter.

Eddie Futch certainly rated Mosley highly. When Mosley was coming out of the amateurs and then ripping through the Lightweights he speculated that Mosley, "could potentially be the equal of Sugar Ray Robinson." Even Eddie Futch made misjudgements every now and then, I guess. I think Alex has made a good point about Mosley's jabbing. He really struggled against guys with a better jab than himself and who kept him on the outside. Anyone can lose, but the heavy, one-sided nature of some of his losses (Forrest I and Wright I) probably highlighted a clear weakness in Shane's game.

Aside from the first De la Hoya fight I can't remember too many fights where he boxed a disciplined game plan and beat someone on the outside. Could be that it all came so easily to him at 135 - just being able to outspeed, overpower and outclass guys at will - that he never developed the other sides of his game enough. Cracking fighter, mind you, but just a little behind some of the other names in my eyes.

And of course, SOF, there's a reason that Robinson is the consensus greatest!

If Roy Jones had of retired at 34 after winning his piece of the heavyweight crown he would be viewed much more kindly. The fact that we all seen his decline clouds judgement. Hagler retired at 34 for example. Jones to me for the 10 years between 93-2003 Hopkins to Ruiz, was more suited to the boxing game that anyone else I've ever seen.

Well it's certainly not a bad combination, jimdig. Beat everyone, make them look bad, hardly ever get hit by them and knock most of them out. Can't really argue with that!

I'd have no real issue with anyone putting Jones' name forward for this kind of thing, because there is definitely a scope for interpretation. I guess the only issue that blurrs the lines for some people is deciding how much of Jones' greatness was down to him being just a unique and outrageously gifted physical force of nature rather than being down to actual boxing skill and technical ability. As a lot of opponents and trainers said both before and after facing Jones, from a technical view point he made plenty of 'mistakes', but his reflexes, speed and power let him get away with them. Once those cat-like responses and fleeting feet desserted him he didn't have the best technique or ring smarts to fall back on, you could argue.

In terms of just being a physical talent then Jones was pretty much one of a kind, though. Appreciate he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, and that business with the failed IBF test is definitely a blotch on the copy book as well, even if we accept that there's a benefit of the doubt angle to it. But he was phenomenal and a real one-off. Of all the fighters classed as 'great' he arguably had the widest margin of dominance against his peers during his peak than any of them.

Some of that was down to it not being the most amazing era between 160 and 175, sure, but for me a hell of a lot more of it was down to how good Jones was at the time.

Personally, and its still extremely early, but Crawford looks like he has the potential to be a truly complete fighter.

A personal favourite of mine and maybe not as stylish as some mentioned by Monzon has to be up there, he could win any which way and would use his opponents strengths against them. There is a tendency with these things to focus solely on the speedsters but anyone who can beat you on the inside or outside, brawling or boxing as well as out think you has to be fairly complete.

Ray Robinson is miles above any of the others for me the man was not just good at everything he was great at everything. Big puncher, iron chin, blistering handspeed, unbreakable heart, dancers footwork, sublime skills, incredible stamina. My father tells me that the very old timers from his younger days thought the only other fighter at a similar level to Robinson was Joe Gans who in terms of modern fight fans is the most forgotten all time great.

Of the Brits Calzaghe had pretty much had all the attributes.

Duran had the defensive skills and the attack, discipline wasn't great though.

Gene Tunney and Fitz were clever operators for their time.

Obviously the focus is on the pros here, but if I may duck into the amateurs for a second, then I think Felix Savon bears consideration in this discussion. Technically superb, and athletic at 6'4.

In my time, it's either Leonard, Ali or RJJ, in that order.

RJJ was more athleticism, Ali was great but was probably better on the counter. Leonard could do both spectacularly well. Had great natural attributes. Fast hands, good chin, great reflexes, great heart, good defence and a good boxing brain so could adapt etc.

Honourable mention to Hagler who, depending on day, could be 4th or 2nd. Depending if I rate consistency over peak talents.

Sorry, can't rate Monzon or Chavez snr as 'complete' fighters. Chavez snr, in particular, is underrated. 99 fights undefeated, about 20 defences across 3 weights, or what ever. Who cares about FMJ and rocky's 49 fight record. If chavez had fought less than 98 fights he would have been a record breaker!

Trussman prefers having it in his ring and not the boxing ring.

hogey wrote:Ray Robinson is miles above any of the others for me the man was not just good at everything he was great at everything. Big puncher, iron chin, blistering handspeed, unbreakable heart, dancers footwork, sublime skills, incredible stamina. My father tells me that the very old timers from his younger days thought the only other fighter at a similar level to Robinson was Joe Gans who in terms of modern fight fans is the most forgotten all time great.  

Gans has his fans on here Hogey. It's tricky with the old timer's because there's so little footage, but I have to say that from descriptions of him, he certainly fits the bill in this discussion. And from what very like little I've seen he looked years ahead of his time, fabulous footwork and movement, handspeed, power, stamina, great defence.

Good call.

allamericanboy wrote:Trussman prefers having it in his ring and not the boxing ring.

As first posts go, one of great perception. Whether it moves the debate on or not is open to question, but a fine start regardless.

Think that most of the names are here.

Most complete, as opposed to best, is the tough thing to judge and whether this includes mental fortitude and ring intelligence or just all-round fighting skills. A man such as Thomas Hearns had everything you'd want from a fighter on the physical side and I certainly don't buy the notion that he was chinny, but he was definitely lacking in the brainpower department which is arguably one of the most important weapons in any great fighter's armoury.

Assuming that we're including mental fortitude and boxing IQ alongside all the boxing and fiighting gifts, therefore, I'd include Benny Leonard, Tunney, Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Jofre, Ali (with the merest hint of a quibble over his inside game), Ray Leonard, Roy Jones, Mayweather and perhaps surprisingly, Michael Nunn in my top 10. I still can't see quite where it went wrong for Nunn, as I look back. Had every trick in the book, the bonus of being a southpaw and therefore awkward for orthodox fighters, a good chin (it appeared), vicious power when he chose to use it, intelligence, fortitude and elusiveness. For a spell of two or three years, he looked absolutely unbeatable and there have been very few performances to compare with the drubbing that he handed out to a really good all-round champion in Tate.

Fell off a cliff in the end, as we all know, but if you were building an identikit middleweight with which to go to war at the highest level, the Nunn of the late 1980s wouldn't be a bad place at which to start.

Different style of fighter obviously but I find myself putting nunn and curry in that bracket (perhaps because their peaks were virtually concurrent) of guys who looked to have it all, dominated for a while... and then, well, didn't!

If Willie Pep had more power, difficult to see how anyone would have beaten him, fantastically skilled boxer.

Nunn that beat Tate vs GGG...............Would be interesting..