what makes a great fighter for U

I'm more into the action fighters.

They dont have to be the most skilled and the most talented, as long as theyre not so sloppy and as long as theyre very active and have big fighting hearts, I'll like them.

Fighters that do dramatic and exciting stuff that'll make you involuntarily jump out of your seat and cheer loudly and curse like a sailor when you watch his fights.

 

Gatti, In Jin Chi, Pacquiao, Morales, those kinda guys. They dont just fight, they perform.

It's live drama theater on top of the squared circle.

I'm sure there are lots better examples of these kinds of boxers through the years, but I have not seen many of their fights.

 

:thumbsup

 

When I rank how great a fighter is, I throw out resumes, records and all that $hit. I look at what the fighter is mentally and physically capable of doing against his opposition, and how good his opposition is plays a big part. Cotto is gonna look like TOP 10 all time against Jennings of course. But when a guy like Pernell can look that great against Chavez, thats saying something.

 

To me it's about being successful while fighting the best fighters in their era/division. Taking on all comers and always looking to fight the best... even if their styles don't match up perfectly. How they come back after a loss... if they can get off the canvas to win a fight. It isn't a big deal to me if a fighter has several losses... as long as he also has found success. I don't only rate a certain type of fighter highly. Whether it be an action fighter, master boxer, great counterpuncher, ect... I enjoy watching a fighter trying to impose his will and fight his fight.

I don't really want to just name a single fighter because so many fit my description. I think that boxing fans use the word "great" in much too strict a manner. If you are ever around any combat sport you would know exactly how hard it is to become the best in the entire world. A lot of Champions really catch heat that is completely uncalled for. Also.. I hate how fans completely write off an entire division... as with the Heavyweight division today. People mistake a lack of star power for a lack of talent. There is A LOT of talent in the entire world, including in the heavyweight division. Having more exposure, and media star power doesn't make you a more talented fighter.

Sorry about the rant... I will throw one name out there that I have huge respect for. Evander Holyfield. The man fought EVERYONE in an era where most of the top fighters of his division were avoiding each other. Yes he had a mixed bag of success and downfalls... but at least he was willing to put himself out there. Rather than leaving a bunch of "shoulda, woulda, coulda's" and "What if's"... like most of the top fighters of his era left behind.

 

Me aswell.

Good post P4pdabest.

I throw out Belts all that **** and i put it down to one thing.

Im i getting what i paid for. Skill wise entertainment.

Like my favourite fighters.

All Time
Kostya Tszyu
Marvin Hagler
Mike Tyson
Jeff Fenech
Carlos Monzon

Now
Manny Pacquiao
Michael Katsidis
Juan Diaz
Vic Darchinyan
Isreal Vazquez

 

An underrated aspect, in my opinion, is the ability (yes, ability) to have a long career. No one fighter will have perfect conditions for every single fight (physical prime/peak, optimum focus, perfect training, perfect team etc) so it goes without saying that a fighter should have to overcome adversity.

 

People with 1 really impressive attribute (even if the rest are average or worse), eg really fast, really powerful, great chin, great stamina. Always makes for a good fight.

Also really like boxes who are pretty humble/down to earth, dont really enjoy the PBF persona personally.

 

It is the ones that don't rather than the majority of "Greats" that do. I had Tyson in mind, whilst some others who favor intensity over longevity would disagree.