:readthre: PLEASE READ! :readthre: Allow me to explain before this is misunderstood. What I'm speaking of is fighters without a fixed style - who do not carry a set code of behaviors into the ring, and can not be pigeonholed into one of the many lists of styles generally consented upon as existing (some of the lists being narrow, ie the archetypal infighter, outfighter and slugger trifecta; and some wider to encompass such specifics as boxer-puncher, swarmer, cutie-pie, etc.). In other words, I'm looking for a ring chameleon. Someone who, on any given night, could give you everything or nothing that you expected, and anywhere in between. I don't mean someone who was just always awkward and unpredictable. I mean someone who changed from one fight to the next, as improbable as that is (given how difficult it is for most boxers to train in and perfect one given style over the course of their career). A jack of all trades, who used them all as called for by the situation. My thoughts first went to Hopkins, but even he doesn't really fit. There was a major shift in his style, but you can pretty much trace the demarcation to the midpoint of his career and call it a "before" and "after" - with the younger Executioner being a defensively sound but forward-minded and heavy-handed counterpuncher, and the older and wiser but less athletic Bernard evolving into more of a rough-housing spoiler, with an effective but usually fan-unfriendly style. He didn't completely reinvent himself like the sweet science equivalent of Madonna from one fight to the next. Did anyone? :think
Punch bag to speed bag to what? Also it is one 't' you absoloute dickhead. I think Andre Ward deserves a mention here. He is like water, adapts to his opponents and surroundings.
Mayweather Jr. has exhibited a pretty wide range of skills throughout his career. I also think Pep had a lot of tricks in his bag, he could do quite a bit in the ring.
Lewis and Leonard immediately came to mind. What about Marvin Hagler? He could box, swarm or slug, depending on what the situation called for.
I don't think anyone would deny that he had a very distinct style, though, regardless of his plethora of skills.
Yeah...it's a slippery slope. The impetus for this was a thread about "which great beat the most other greats with different styles" and it was interesting to see all these terrific fighters pigeonholed, tagged, and categorized. It got me to thinking of who was immune to such single-phrase simplifications and defied categorization. Interestingly, the top name in that thread (SRL) also happens to be a near consensus pick thus far in this one. And no, there was no agenda or presupposed hypothesis going in - it has just developed that way. :yep It begs the question (here's the hypothesis): is the key to transcending mere greatness yourself in beating many fellow greats, to become a master of all styles and slave to none?