Is it ridiculous that Ring ranks Nigel Benn the 91st greatest puncher ever?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by D.T, Apr 30, 2011.

  1. The Funny Man 7

    The Funny Man 7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    2,080
    Blatant bias, Benn at the kind of rare power that could make any fighter abandon their game plan and retreat. Whenever Benn lost it was his terrible defense, questionable stamina down the stretch, and lack of imagination in putting his punches into combinations.
     
  2. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    58,442
    Likes Received:
    13,563
    Holyfield?!!!
     
  3. Kittikasem

    Kittikasem Guest

    Maybe it's referring to Holyfield as a puncher at cruiserweight. He was an excellent puncher at cruiser.
     
  4. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    58,748
    Likes Received:
    21,596
    John Mugabi is at 38 on the list, Leotis Martin is at 68.

    Surely Nigel Benn is getting a raw deal being put at 91.
     
  5. Kittikasem

    Kittikasem Guest

    No way does Mugabi deserve to be 50+ places higher than Benn.
     
  6. D.T

    D.T Guest


    No, you dumb ****.

    Evidence suggests that Fitzsimmons not only hit hard, but was accurate with his punches and used his power efficiently. He didn't waste many hard shots.

    Go back to the general forum :hi:
     
  7. Kittikasem

    Kittikasem Guest

    Close your mouth you hideous spastic. The evidence suggests that Fitzsimmons was blessed with abnormal natural punching power, and that's before you even start to consider any other attributes of Fitz's.

    Go and join the Australian forum you marsupial-molesting ****head. :good
     
  8. Valane

    Valane Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    3


    He turned in to an accumulation puncher at 168lb, i'm also pretty sure that they are factoring in their overall ability as punchers. It's a pretty shitty list in any event.
     
  9. D.T

    D.T Guest

    You just failed epicly.

    Read my post before lowering yourself to such levels.

    Btw, that was easily the worst attempt at trying to mock someone. Ever.
     
  10. atberry

    atberry Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    9,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    I think a lot of the guys he fought at 168 were much bigger men naturally and most fought at light-heavy/cruiser before and after, whereas Benn could still make middle and says it took him 3-4 years to grow into the 168 division fully.
     
  11. enquirer

    enquirer Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,206
    Likes Received:
    26
    At 160 Benn really was a tremendously agressive and massive puncher.
    If he caught anybody flush they would with very few exceptions be in serious trouble. The problem was if you got over his early assault he could tire,as he generally expended way too much energy and didnt show much finesse in punch picking. At 168 he learned to calm down and box,but he still carried a great dig.I think its just that he committed a lot less (except the mclelland fight.) and was fighting way bigger men at 168.
    In terms of raw power a great puncher indeed,way better than most on the list.