A jack of all trades and master of most of them

[janitor]

Who were the fighters who were just good at everything.

Able to take on the role of boxer or puncher, able to adapt their style to whatever they needed it to be.

Basicaly able to bring whatever stylistic tools to the table that the situation demanded.

Names please.

[young griffo]

Marvin Hagler was a very versatile fighter who could punch,box and brawl very well depending on who he fought.

The only real criticism you could level at him is that he could be a little slow to adapt to a fighters particular style during the fight (Antuofermo,Monroe,Watts) but he was an absolute beast in rematches which compensates for that weakness somewhat.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by young griffo

Marvin Hagler was a very versatile fighter who could punch,box and brawl very well depending on who he fought.

The only real criticism you could level at him is that he could be a little slow to adapt to a fighters particular style during the fight (Antuofermo,Monroe,Watts) but he was an absolute beast in rematches which compensates for that weakness somewhat.

Just out of interest, do you think Hagler would have beaten Leonard if they had agreed to an immediate rematch.

[young griffo]

Originally Posted by Sweet Science

Just out of interest, do you think Hagler would have beaten Leonard if they had agreed to an immediate rematch.

Yes.

No way Hagler boxes as tentatively as he did early in their fight again.I'd look for Hagler to apply constant pressure and to prevent Leonard stealing rounds through potshots and flurries (even if they were ineffectual) and to use his edge in strength and power to force Leonard to fight more off the ropes early in the fight.This is if Hagler still had the physical tools to fight with an increased workrate and intensity,which I think he did.

Hagler UD 12 if they'd fought an immediate rematch imo.

Evander Holyfield, B-Hop, Aaron Pryor, M.A.Barrera,......

Bad mofos used the whole arsenal boxing could offer.

[Maxmomer]

Duran, Langford.

[BoppaZoo]

Kostya Tszyu

He could Box as seen against Forrest as an amatuer or he could turn it up and be a Power hitter as we all saw against alot of different opponents.

He was smart and never rushed himself in fights never got Outboxed by a Pure boxer.
He could end a fight with either hand or finish with killer instinct.

Great one, two puncher or combinations.
Great counter puncher aswell
and a All time Great i feel at cutting off the ring nobody ive seen was better at it than Tszyu for the last 20 years.

But having said all that he had one big weaness and that was strong pyshical type fighters. Bigger clinching type fighters like Phillips and Hatton. I take nothing away from them they fought well and hard and had the right style to beat Tszyu but having said that Hatton got Tszyu at close to turning 36 years old and in Manchester at 2am in the morning.

I loved watching Tszyu stalk his Prey it was great to watch its a pity he is retired.

[Sweet Science]

Barrera. Not the early version, the later one that had refined his boxing ability.

Hopkins fits the description even more aptly.

[BoppaZoo]

Originally Posted by Sweet Science

Barrera. Not the early version, the later one that had refined his boxing ability.

The MAB against Prince was unbelievable. That night he had it all and was a machine.

Barrera's counter punching how good is it.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by BoppaZoo

The MAB against Prince was unbelievable. That night he had it all and was a machine.

Barrera's counter punching how good is it.

Totally agree he made Naseem Hamed look very silly that night.

[Sizzle]

I have to say I disagree strongly with a lot of these - Ray Leonard is the best shout so far.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by Sizzle

I have to say I disagree strongly with a lot of these - Ray Leonard is the best shout so far.

Which picks do you most disagree with?

[JohnThomas1]

Ray Leonard, Robinson was good too. Michael Spinks was super versatile in his own awkward way as doubly proven in his stint at Heavyweight.

[Titan1]

Ezzard Charles

[Sizzle]

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.