These are some names that I'll throw it that come to mind, I won't be able to put every boxer just in case I leave some names out.
BTW, just in case people are wondering why I put Cotto, it's cause he's shown he could box good and brawl, his stamina is the only question mark I feel. But he does a little of everything from what I've seen.
It posted 2 threads because I backspaced to change something on the poll I was making. It was a mistake I made.
well you can take cotto off the list...if he was versatile he would have shifted gears and styles to beat margo.....the fact that he stayed with the same game plan shows he doesn't belong on the list.
Well he did cause Cotto is a more in your face fighter and he boxed Marg and was outboxing him easy until his legs gave out from the pressure. The only other thing he could of done was brawl with him and that would of been stupid. He would of had to start clinching him but he never did.
:rofl Sorry, but Pea is right. You put some strange choices on your polls. Mike Tyson? Even in his prime, when I was impressed at him outjabbing the much taller and rangier Tony Tucker, he was only going to win when he came forward. A guy like Roberto Duran could apply great pressure, or box behind the jab (Dejesus 3) and beat guys up. You saw him tweak his game as he got older and get some quality wins. Duran should be mentioned. Michael Spinks was very versatile. He could bomb guys out, or stink it out behind his ugly herky jerky style and pesky jab
****, i just voted for floyd:rofl i would say the most adaptable boxers imo are (not in order) sugar ray robinson, SRL, duran, and even larry holmes... pernell whitaker could be there, mainly because he is damn fast, mobile and a great outboxer:smoke his style is meant for several styles