Boxers most consider great, that you don't

Dempsey`s head movement wasn`t clever he put his head to far forwards while attacking, bringing him closer to the lead hand, making him easy to jab, as for the other three, I don`t know what you`re thinking.

 

Charles and Walcott were great but Tucker gave a good account of himself against Tyson and showed a better chin than WAlcott did.

 

Touche.

 

Holmes was too esy to hit with the right hand and the counter right was one of Marciano`s favourite punches.

 

Thank you for saying what many of us already thought. YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

 

Walcott and Charles were a much bigger test for marciano than Tucker was for tyson, and Walcott/Charles are both better than Tucker as well. Never said Tyson's resume was terrible (Tucker, Ruddock, Spinks and Bruno) are all decent names on his list, just that Marciano's competition was better

 

Lmao

 

Maybe, but Tucker was far better than Ruddock and Bruno and took a much better heavyweight shot than Spinks.

 

Don't underestimate Michael, the main reason the fight was so 1 sided was because he was pissing himself before the fight. Michael absolutely feared Tyson

Same thing happened to Patterson

 

Plus Tyson was amazing in that round, he never quite reached that level ever again.

 

This content is protected

 

I think it's perfectly possible to be able to understand what Whitaker brought to the game and still not enjoy watching him. There are plenty of fighters like that.

He can be viewed as an objectively great fighter from his achievements alone but it's still a matter of personal taste whether you enjoy his style. I don't think it is automatically reflective of a lack of understanding about boxing.

 

I "understand" boxing. I've watched boxing since 1975. I boxed as a teen.

He was skilled. He had a style that suited those skills.

It's when people get into the "VAST" skills and "you have to understand boxing" (like I don't) to "get" Whitaker ... is where I just am done.

I don't think he was great.

He was a winner. No doubt. But he wasn't "great" to me.

If others think he was based on his wins, fine.

I don't.

 

Is it Fairytale Fantasy Land again?

- Walcott was not more elusive than Holmes, especially not the old version
- Holmes prooved his chin when he got caught BIG
- The Rocky right caused a rotational spin to the head, Walcott got hit on the spot, does not equal power! Papers out there proove that this is the worst way you can get caught because it has least resistance and cause high acceleration
- Holmes got caught frontal by Shavers
- Rocky was not quicker than Shavers
- Rocky didn´t carry Shavers power to start with
- A bigger head makes a better chin due to higher inertia
- Bigger necks damp more head-movement (--> chin)

There is just so much wrong in your piece of text, sry bro.

 

Holmes also survived much bigger punchers has a 13" reach advantage and 30lbs on Rocky not to mention he's the quicker fighter and has as much heart. Holmes was not this super easy to hit fighter in fact he was better defensively then Rocky. In fact an argument can be made at heavyweight Holmes hit harder then Moore and Walcott (maybe less then Walcott although close) both of whom put Rocky down.