Originally Posted by Sweet Science
Which picks do you most disagree with?
I have to say that Kostya Tsyzu (much as I admire him) being described as a "jack of all trade, master of most" struck me as odd - I always thought of him as a fairly one dimensional fighter, at least offensively. He was always looking to set up that straight right - He pawed with his jab to set up the right, that was his formula most of the time, he couldn't really be described as one of the most well-rounded punchers, although that straight right had to be one of the best punches ever at light welter, not just for power but for efficiency. He landed it A LOT.
I didn't really see Tsyzu as much of a "boxer", just a patiently aggressive puncher in the Joe Louis mould, expert at cutting off the ring as previously mentioned. If ever he was going to box and use the ring, the Hatton fight was the perfect opportunity. He stalked and bombarded his opponents and it worked well for him most of the time.
You might say Thomas Hearns lacked a few crucial qualities. In terms of being a boxer and a puncher he's a terrific example, but there were always question marks over his chin and conditioning, no? And did he ever demonstrate he was a prolific inside fighter?
I don't know if I'd consider Pryor a jack of the "boxing" trade, seemed a fighter pretty set with his ring strategy, but I've only seen a few of his fights, may have shown the ability to box in others?
Not that I'm suggesting these fighters weren't so good, sometimes fighters are so strong in a certain aspect they don't neccessarily need to develop another. During his prime Roy Jones didn't need to have a sturdy chin, or fundamental excellence with his athleticism. Foreman didn't need to develop technical brilliance when he was blowing opponents out with his overwhelming power. And so on.