Highest and Lowest ring IQ's

Can't really see some of these. Loma is skilled but doesn't have the highest IQ since he basically blew two winnable fights.

Mayorga and Wilder lack/lacked skills but knew/know how to work with what they have. Examples of this are Mayorga beating Forrest's ass despite the gulf in skill and Wilder getting Ws over Ortiz and a draw against Fury.

 

Wouldn't really class that "DRAW" as Wilders example of great boxing IQ.

More like corrupt judges / AL Harmon influence and pish poor scoring.

 

Big Brain

Jack Britton - 340+ fights, fought until he was 44, held onto his skill in old age (boxed to a draw against Walker at 35), was only stopped once (3rd fight), and defeated, hung, or lost closely to some of the greatest boxers ever (Leonard, Walker, McFarland, Lewis, etc.)

Benny Leonard - He was described as a having a "hair trigger brain" by Nat Fleischer.

Bob Fitzsimmons - Joe Gans studied him because of his depth.

Joe Gans - Had just about every tool in his arsenal and knew how to use them.

Midget Wolgast - Maybe the trickiest boxer of all-time.

Archie Moore - Diverse repertoire, longevity, competent from middleweight to heavyweight.

I always thought guys like Jesse James Leija and Mauricio Herrera had high ring IQs. They were very crafty but didn't have a lot of physical tools to supplement their game, e.g. power, speed.

I find it difficult to rate anyone who came near world class to be a C or less. It seems to take some level of know-how to get to that level, even if it appears someone is relying a lot of one aspect of their game. To add one name, though, I would say James Kirkland was a grub-brain. Lots of punches and big power but little in the way of strategy.

 

Either that or a title has never been won by decision in a fight with modern scoring where the challenger was floored in separate rounds and the champion stayed upright.

 

In regard to Lomachenko, I'm okay with people holding the Lopez fight against him but doing it for the Salido bout is silly and actually proves the opposite of what some intend. Lomachenko went from a fighter unsure of how to pace himself over 12 rounds, who was used to the constant intervention of amateur refs and fairness amateur weigh-ins brought, to a savvy professional who knew how to play the game. That's why after the Salido fight, Lomachenko would appeal to the referee if he was low-blowed, body punch more often because he had a better understanding of its utility, and try and break clinches to highlight to the ref that he was being held. The rate at which he progressed from Salido to Russell was immense. Even Roy Jones said during the 11th round of Salido-Lomachenko that, "Lomachenko is getting much smarter, though. He's learning a lot about true pro boxing."

 

I don't think of skills when I think of ring IQ. I think of playing to your strengths. Wilder picked up boxing late and was therefore destined to have his limits. But he also fought every fight except Fury II and maybe Szpilka on his terms, which is at range with low punch output.

 

Indeed but his physical gifts are a big reason for that. If he wasn't 6'6 with an 83 inch reach, blessed with great power and speed he would not be able to dictate the terms of so many of his fights. People confuse ring IQ with physical ability: some fighters can't adjust because they are too physically limited, like Frazier or Tyson. However, Wilder set up his KO's well and demonstrated better survival skills than AJ, so his boxing IQ isn't the lowest. Also, it's not necessarily low IQ to give away rounds if it's part of a strategy, point-fighting is just one way to win after all. Take the recent fight between Joyce and Takam: the highly durable Joyce was getting hit clean a lot by the light punching Takam but he was simultaniously tiring the older and more worn Takam out with constant pressure and jabs, he knew Takam was going to gas out and get KO'd in the mid rounds. Wilder likewise knew or strongly believed that he could afford to take his time against Ortiz because he was going to slow down eventually and get taken out, which is what happened. Wilder is a naturally dumb guy which is a limitation aside from starting boxing late but he has good fighting instincts, better than Wlad in some ways: can you imagine him letting AJ off the hook in Britain after catching him with a bomb in the 6th? Provided Wilder still had energy left in his body, he'd windmill AJ to the canvas until he didn't get up rather than trying to go to points and win a decision, which demonstrated the most extreme cautiousness and naivety (if not low ring IQ).

 

I would definitely rate Hopkins an A+.

 

Riddick Bowe F or F- if possible lol.

 

Well, Wlad then was ring rusty 41 y.o rich businessman with 17 months ring rust.
I know that fighters, especially EE fighters are judged only from their last pro career fights. It is comfortable to assume that they always were the same quality and with the same instincts, regardless 21, 31 or 41 years old. When it is done in the same manner with western boxers evaluation, then people in forums feel scared. Then it is fair to list how old they were when had lost fight A, B, C, D.
Wlad looks that had pretty good fighting instincts when was not old : from 64 pro boxing wins 54 via stoppage.
In am boxing no one is able to cherry pick bums to fight with like in pro boxing. In high level tournaments you can't get short notice bums because this isn't holy pro " boxing ". Wlad had 65 wins via stoppage in am rules boxing.

I might list here bunch with notable western boxers who had lost their " instincts", reflexes etc things when they turned 37+ y.o, some even earlier.

I also do not agree that Foreman had low IQ. His style was specific and he had a lot of flaws.
Foreman still was Olympic Gold medalist in semi - old era am boxing, stuff more harsh than pro boxing 4 rounders in last 2-3 decades for sure.
We should not forget that Foreman's ring IQ is undervalued just cos this Zaire fight. No one brings up that he is lad Ali never had gave rematch. Did not fought vs Foreman in US or U.K, maybe cos better climate and commisions. Zaire is very specific place.
Foreman also easily had dealt with Frazier and Norton, guys who had gave Ali absolute nightmare and hell.
Ali had lost 1 st fight vs Frazier cos he allowed him to close distance and take angles comfortable for him to start throw. He could not adapt enough for Frazier and looks that after this fight Ali started to decline. Physically. Speech quality and speed, how he walked and did pre fight talks. 2 nd fight vs Frazier actually too might had been scored for Frazier, might had been not. Again Frazier declined him more. 3 rd fight vs Frazier, maybe if ref had walked to Ali corner after this round first not to Frazier corner, maybe Frazier had won this one.
Norton fights: again, he was not able to adapt, lost 1 st fight, might had lost 2 nd fight too, easily might be 1-2 vs Frazier or with bad luck 0-3 vs Frazier and 1-2 vs Norton.
These are boxers Foreman had dealt with easily.

 

Frank Bruno. People's perception generally is he couldn't take a punch. He just didn't now what to do when he got hurt in my opinion.

 

In my humble opinion, 1 example at each grade.

A+: Floyd
A: Hopkins
B+: Cotto
B: Canelo
C+: Dawson
C: Khan
D+: Zab
D: Provodnikov
F: Mayorga

Disclaimer: I didn't leave anyone specific out purposely, I'm just using one example per level so miss me with the "you left this guy or that guy out", I agree that there are definitely numerous guys that fit at each grade.

 

Did you watch the fight?

Wilder lost every round bar the one where he floored Tyson.

Would love to see your cards?