Fighters you consider "controversial" greats

Camacho is controversial because he had the quickest hand speed I`ve ever seen but this speed diminished as he moved up where his was way less effective and less aggressive than he was pre Rosario, plus a lot of people would place him above Rosario but he was nearly knocked out and simply ran for the rest of the fight, many would also say even at lightweight Chavez would have cut the ring off him the same way he did at welter. Whether Camacho was great or not he was above the next fighters I`m going to mention! Most British boxers in any top 10 list compiled by British pundits like Coin Hart the so-called voice of boxing over here in England, Chris Eubank SR who I`m only mentioning for any Brit fans watching this thread, this is a man that didn`t have a clue about boxing and loss balance every time he had to come forward and attack, his whole success which was ended by Collins was based on waiting for his foe to punch so could through a slightly quick counter and run away and he still used to get tagged by average fighters. This man is considered a legend by silly experts here some are more critical but he considered to great attributes, Roy Jones said for some reason this is the one fighter that would of given him problems! This must be because they were both counter punchers! Tarver, a 39 year old McCallum and even Griffin used the jab to trouble Jones more than Eubank would,you could mention Calzaghe but Jones 39 and a little slower at light heavy, having said that Joy easily defeated Eubank before he really developed into a world class fighter, Eubank was nowhere near the level of light heavy great John Conteh who is also a legend in Britain who would cause controversy because of his losses to Saad Muhammad, but Conteh`s lifestyle did play some part in his downfall. Eubank does not belong on the same page as any of the fighters I just mentioned whether they were truly great or not.

 

Jones jr because he looked phenomenal at middle and super middle but he was clearly on peds and he often fought sub standard opposition.

 

Rodrigo Valdez comes to mind right away, as does the previously named Hector Camacho..as does Orlando Canizales.

 

Bad Bennie Briscoe

Joltin Jeff Chandler

And Simply The Best Chris Eubank

 

Jack Dempsey.

Marcel Cerdan.

i consider them great. But I've noted controversy.

 

What advantage do peds give you, they didn`t give him his lightinin speed or strange angles when punching which gave his shots power?

 

Of course peds give you speed look what Ben Johnson accomplished on peds. They also increase muscle and reduce fatigue. If you're a great athlete they will make you that much better and if you're a great athlete boxing and you're opponent isn't on peds and as naturally gifted as you they will lose. You're not going to tire out and give them openings by doing so and you are more impervious to their shots anyway by your increased muscle size. Maybe not right on the chin but in the torso etc.
it's clearly a big edge.

 

Jeff fenick was fancied as a future great but didn't make it in my opinion.

 

Nigel Benn

 

He would have if the decision in the first Nelson fight went his way like it damn well should have.

 

Yes in Britain him and Eubank are considered great! Naz was far better than Eubank who he punched at an airport once! But Naz was always off balance after throwing his powerful, awkward shots and could be countered by a good, patient and clever counter puncher, so yes people considering Naz a great makes it controversial according to me.

 

Ben Johnson stated that he was naturally quick and the only thing steroids help him with was recovery while training so he could train at a much faster rate, I thought Jones took peds so that while he was moving up in weight he could put muscle on quicker.