Supposedly he's one of the strongest MW's of all time, an absolute physical freak like Barbados Joe. I hear he outbadassed and outmuscled Carter, who was just as heavily muscled as any boxer I've ever seen. Thoughts?
he was small around 5'8 at middlewieght and light heavy but was heavy for his size, he wasnt a big banger as flabby gut says but he was a man of brute strength which made the difference. where as other small middlewieghts like fullmer,bassilio,lamotta wer small they used there durabilty to win and there power if they had it,tiger used his compact body to move and out hustle bigger fighters. had a good jab form one clip i found. like a tyson jab not used to keep away but to back up with little energy used. it was sad how he got blown out by bob foster
He was monster-strong, a freak indeed. My pick for the strongest at the weight. He manhandled pretty much everyone guys like Fulmer and Carter. As has been mentioned Griffith boxed him very clever and was also genius in clinches. All this and he just wasn't made for the weight. A born SMW if ever there was one.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I've heard Ron Lipton say he was the strongest and most physically gifted fighter he ever saw.
You love Rodrigo, honestly. If he was a mainstream fighter (you know what I mean) i'd have to accuse of nut huggery.
He was fantastic. His second fight with Bennie Briscoe may just be the most vicious I've seen; solid action all the way through but the power and smacking sound of those punches was savage. Valdez wasn't as relentless in his approach as Tiger, but when he stood his ground he could back up anyone. He certainly punched more consistently with regards to his combinations, though he wasn't as quick-fisted (Tiger fought more in bursts). A question for you; who was stronger/more powerful/more durable - Bennie Briscoe or Rubin Carter?
I would say Carter/Carter/Briscoe. I don't agree with you that Tiger "fought in spurts" - or rather I do, but not in the traditional sense. It always seemed to be like he had to be set to a greater degree than most, that he "boxed tidy" in a sort of old fashioned British way. Does that make sense to you?
No. Tiger did look like he felt he had to be set 100% before he let go with punches, aside from the jab. He shuffled forward, jabbed, but would sometimes let opportunities go - on occasion I will be watching Tiger fight and be like 'hit him, just hit him!' - he's holding back too much. But then at other times he might land a four punch combination to the body in the blink of an eye to make up for it. So he wasn't as consistent as Valdez, whose workrate was smoother or more solid. He was more bang.. bang.. bang.. than Tiger's ...... wait for it, wait for it... b-b-bangbangbang!...... If you know what I mean But who's to say whose method would prevail? Valdez certainly showed he could beat a methodical slugger like Briscoe; whom he beat to the punch with superior handspeed and accuracy. His variety of shots was excellent and his defence was compact and hard to penetrate.
Yes. Yes, absolutley. I always feel like Dick Tiger could have been a better (and less frustrating) fighter if he had - wait for it - let his hands go. I have to admit to getting a bit mythical about Tiger at times. A bit "Grebish". But I do feel like if he doesn't have to look for a guy - at 160 - it's close to a forgone conclusion. This would be an interesting one.
In the post-WW2 era, at 160, only fighters who can backpedal, use the ring and box really smart would stand a chance of beating a peak Dick Tiger, IMO. A few fighters did, but even on most of those occasions the scoring was close. He wasn't a mighty power puncher, more of a super-strong and durable stalker/pressure fighter. He picked his shots well, was clever and crisp. Brutal but tidy. Great fighter.
Tiger was as powerful as everyone on this thread has said. He was the image of the large chiseled, black onyx figure in a boxing stance that greeted fans in the lobby of the old Madison Square Garden. Oddly, in street clothes, because of his round shoulders -- thick traps -- like Azuma Nelson -- slumping posture and poorly-fitted jackets and pants, no one would have suspected him of being the intimidating physical specimen he was in trunks. Also, I doubt if he was really 5'8", in spite of what I've read.
:yikes I THINK VITI ANTUOFERMO CARMIN BASILIO AND GENE FULLMER WERE EVERY BIT AS STRONG AS TIGER. I LIKED ALL FOUR OF THESE FIGHTERS AND RATE THEM VERY EVENLY IN STRENGTH.
Antuofermo? Maybe. He was not the fighter Tiger was, but in terms of stamina, durability and raw strength he was hard to equal. Basilio was terribly strong as a welterweight and still strong at 160lbs, but there was a fair gap in size between him and Tiger, who was still very strong even at light heavyweight. Fullmer, though perhaps equal to Tiger as a fighter overall, knew he wasn't as strong when the two met so he opted to box more. Fullmer, who I like a lot, was really strong - Tiger was just stronger.
Tiger, because of his roots, did not get the correct training needed until he was already somewhat of veteran. One of the greats whose knockout percentage really does not tell the full story. Again, so many of Tigers early set-backs were due to him still being too 'rough around the edges'. When one considers what Carter did to Emile, perhaps in a bit of a fluke, Tiger's comprehensive dismantling of Rubin is a testament to his brute-like strength in the ring. A torrid left hook to the head and body.