Name the best inside fighters in boxing history?

I don't have anything to do tomorrow so I think I'll just kick back, grab a beer and watch these fights. Cheers :good

 

No problem, man.

 

How come you don't hear as much about it? because the guys aren't as well known I assume?

 

they are definitly as well known by true fight fans an both have shots at hof especialy johny tapia

 

You won't hear as much about it on the General Forum. I'd say it's just as highly regarded on the Classic Forum, though. Most guys in this forum just aren't that interested in fighters before their time, and fights like Gatti/Ward I and Corrales/Castillo I were some of the bigger ones during their time, which is why they get all the plaudits among modern fans.

Dick Tiger in particularly was a far greater fighter than any of the men involved in those fights.

 

Tyson, Chavez, Toney, Duran... I'm leaving off Frazier and a few other guys because although they did their work inside, their method was to plant their heads on your chest and get their shots off without letting you get yours off more than slip and counter etc and actually fight there. Tyson's not getting much credit here but he was a MONSTROUS inside fighter with vicious close combinations. In his prime he crippled guys with that short hook/uppercut move.

Chico and JLC deserve a shout in this category.

 

I have heard of Dick Tiger before somewhere, I recognize the name I just don't know anything about him.

I'm 17, and have only been following boxing for about a year and half now and I only really became a hardcore fan just under a year ago so I'm just trying to learn as much about the history of boxing as I can. I absolutely love it.

 

Tiger was a good tough Nigerian fighter and a quality champ, but saying he was 'far greater' than JLC is ridiculous.

 

SNV. He crushed opponents on the inside.

 

He beat a higher quality of fighter more consistently throughout his prime, only losing to the best, and generally avenging the losses in rematches (or just being unlucky not to have garnered the decisions in the first place).

He started off shaky, but that's what happens when you learn your trade in the boxing booths of Nigeria only to emigrate to the UK against an entirely different breed of fighter. By the time he'd reached his prime (circa '59 or '60) he'd evolved his style to combat both boxers and brawlers equally and remained one of the best fighters from Middleweight to Lt. Heavyweight for almost a decade, only ever losing decisively in that span to the hardest punching Lt. Heavy of all time in Bob Foster (check the size difference in that fight).

Tiger is a consensus top 100 all time great, and it's not too much of a stretch to include him in a top 50. Ya can't say the same of Castillo.

 

JC Chavez Sr

 

P4P, Kell Brook.

 

Only losing to the best? Like Rory Calhoun, Randy Sandy, Wilf Greaves and a couple others? And that's giving him a pass for his early losses, those were during his prime years. Split decisions, losses and draws to smaller guys like Joey Archer, Fullmer etc...

If you want to say he's greater than JLC, Castillo etc, fine, that's your opinion. FAR greater? No.

As far as lists go, you can't take **** from lists. He makes Ring Magazine's list at #31 in 2002, ahead of Emile Griffith which is total bull**** since Griffith was smaller and beat Tiger twice. He doesn't even make the top 50 in 2007 while Emile comes in at #34. Lists are fun, but that's about it.

 

His prime years? They were his first fights in the U.S., some of his first against classy opposition, period. They were during the time where he was coming into his own, and he avenged his losses to two of them (the Calhoun decision was very unpopular, whereas the other losses were extremely close).

He bossed Fullmer, who was always a very physically formidable Middleweight. Watch the footage and tell me he's the smaller man. If anything, Tiger's the smaller man.

[yt]vSQJmGxzEFs[/yt]

Archer was a master boxer and one of the worst stylistic match-ups for someone like Tiger. He was considered one of the best ever Middleweights to never win the title. Still, the fight was very, very close.

Nobody was standing toe to toe and beating a prime Tiger, and even the very best boxers had tremendous difficulties besting him, if even they managed to.

I don't think it's even close.

I, and many I know (and most sportswriters of the time), had Tiger winning the first Griffith fight. Griffith, despite starting off at Welter, was a very formidable Middleweight himself, physically as well.

I'm not talking about those lists, anyway, I'm talking about educated ones. And no, Ring lists are not that. Most Ring lists are just randomly placed bull**** with storied favourites coming out on top.

Ask any knowledgable classic fan or writer. I don't think you'll get an argument on Castillo being in the same league. Neither as head to head forces or in terms of accomplishments.

 

goat.