A jack of all trades and master of most of them

... your definition is correct, but I'm not sure that is how it is being understood here. I think the point of the thread is to present fighters who were well-rounded in all areas of boxing -true ring generals comfortable inside, outside; boxing, brawling; offense, defense. Duran is close, Robinson is definite. Donald satisfies the definition strictly understood.

 

:good

 

I actually think Duran - at his peak - was a more well rounded fighter than Robinson, and the most complete of all time. He had pretty much everything in spades and could do almost anything.

But I don't think either fighter was a Jack of all trades. My definition of that is someone who is good in every field, not very good-to-excellent in every field like the aforementioned.

 

Joe Calzaghe perhaps.

Can fight with probably any style.

Every single attribute he posses is also very good or better.

 

Interesting. You are staying true to your calling of challenging convention.

My thoughts: During his peak or near peak, Robinson had demonstrable trouble with Turpin -who was fairly unorthodox and tended to throw Robinson's rythym off. The rematch was a struggle as well...but Robinson overcame with unadulterated late aggression. I don't consider Jake to be much of a foil because the one defeat was at a serious weight disadvantage. Robinson tamed him 5 times all around that. I thought that the Graziano fight was a good indicator of Robinson exceptional ability to box and when the situation called for it, to plant and trade and deliver an anesthetic. Granted Graziano was no world-beater.

Duran had issues with speed and mobility. Even during his prime. He was a master of subtlety particularly... especially inside. DeJesus III (and to a lesser extent: Hagler) demonstrated boxing prowess but these were isolated occurrences. I don't see him as quite masterful at dealing with mobility, nor was he exactly mobile himself in the classic boxing style. His jab could never be ranked anywhere near the top... and the jab is what civilizes what happens in the ring. It separates the boxer from barbarism. Duran disdained all forms of civility and his style reflected that -9 times out of 10. He was not a stand-up boxer and preferred instead to swarm and pressure, fight inside, lay traps, and counter. He wasn't jabbing and moving laterally much. I would submit that his short, squared frame limited his stylistic choices. He was more limited than Robinson who had THE perfect boxer's body. From his dancer's legs to the thunderous fists -which is really a shocking addition if you judge by appearances. I can't say that Duran quite measures up.

Consider for a moment this contrast: Duran as the master brawler -the maestro of backalley baroque, and Leonard as a master boxer -speed and finesse working behind an educated jab. Robinson could out-duran Duran and out-leonard Leonard.

 

Robinson, Ray Leonard, PBF, Roy Jones, shane mosley, B-Hop, Duran

 

My passion for boxing debate has died out. Two months ago I'd have debated my side of the case but today I won't. All I'll say is that I disagree with your notion that Robinson could out-Duran Duran. Even at welterweight it'd be a struggle (Duran would absorb or evade those close range bursts and continue to chip away), but in a pound-for-pound sense, Duran was definitely a better brawler.

And actually, I don't think Robinson was a better boxer than Leonard either. Robinson's real speciality, if I had to pinpoint one, was sharpshooting at mid-range with speed, force and accuracy. He could fight well on the inside and outside, but that was where he was at his best. Duran (or Armstrong) and Pep hold the cards in the other immediate fields.

 

Bernard Hopkins, as good as anyone fighting inside, and at long range. Certainly very well balanced across both those areas. Many fighters lose their technical ability when letting punches explode at a high paced ferocity, but Hopkins always keeps his technique tidy and compact. Although he's not quite up there in the same league with Robinson and Duran regarding ATG status.

Hopkins doesn't have many weaknesses. No question that age really will be a serious weakness one day. Not a particularly busy fighter in terms of workrate, just his style I suppose. Very measured and precise.

Hopkins technically at his very best holds a candle to anyone.

 

Some of you may have misread the thread title...

"A jack of all trades and master of most of them"

Which is certainly different to being a jack of all trade but master of none, i.e., "decent" in all areas

I think Janitor was looking for fighters who were AT LEAST "good" in every area, but phenomenal in most departments.

 

Yeah, i thought he did most things really well. Especially at lightweight. Power, great skills and technique, fast, solid defence just to name a few

 

Fantastic post.

 

Erik Morales, Jorge Arce.

 

Wilfredo Gomez, in the early years

 

Haven't seen much at all of Tszyu as an amateur, and I have to admit that footage surprised me, the final round anyway - Outboxing a very accomplished fighter in Forrest on the backfoot.

But he barely fought that way as a professional - And if he was confident doing it, and there was a perfect time to do it, it was against Hatton who outworked him thoroughly on the inside. Hatton just wore Tsyzu down, and it did seem he felt more comfortable slugging it out with him.

Beating a range of fighters with different qualities doesn't mean you have a range of qualities yourself - Plenty of all time greats, Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong etc were limited in particular areas, but they were so good in others it didn't matter and they could defeat fighters with just about any style.

BTW I can't believe anyone mentioned Mayweather or Roy Jones Jnr. They don't fit the bill at all IMO.