How good was Vernon Forrest?

Forrest was very good. Technically excellent, didnt make a lot of mistakes had good power not great, and I believe he had a little extra motivation in the Mosley fights and really had Shanes number mentally to let his punches go with a lot of power and authority. He would be hard to beat by any fighter, but he did show some lapses when facing a guy who could back him up and was a bit crude. Sometimes the most technically sound fighters are most susceptible to the crudest fighters because they're not used to facing a wild swinging awkward guy and his balance became pretty mixed up when he was pushed back.
All that being said, I dont believe Forrest ever fufilled his full potential. He had horrible shoulder problems and the surgery never corrected it 100% but there was a reason he couldnt land a big fight prior to the Mosley fights and the only reason he got the Mosley fight was because Shane wanted some redemption from the amatuers.

 

Forrest is so good he'd beat more than half of most peoples top20 Welterweights of all Time.

 

How do you reckon he'd do against history's best offensive fighters?

Just asking for some insight.

 

Forrest couldn't even contain Mayorga.


Too tense, poor legs and an unspectacular defence wouldn't bode well for him a lot of fights.Never a fighter that was going to be a long running champion, but he was a good standup boxing technician offensively, not too easy to just outbox at range.

 

Because of the Mayorga loss? I think he fought the wrong fight after being insulted but redeemed himself winning the rematch imo. Assuming he fights the right fight:

Hearns - a better version of himself, KO's him

Robinson - see above

Leonard - Leonard should eventually win out but I see him having problems early on and this being somewhat close

Galivan - Galivan slicker, Forrest rangier and faster with more pop in his shots, this is interesting 1 and I see it as a close contest that could go either way

Tito - Tito wouldnt get past Vernons jab and wouldnt handle his speed to well

Walker - Walker has no jab, Forrest should win a widish UD

Napoles - he could well beat Napoles, hes the much bigger man, faster with the better jab. Napoles may well take it to mid range and hurt Forrest there. But I think Forrest can pull it out

Griffith - Forrest combines some of the skills Monzon and Napoles brought to the ring, Griffith is super slick though, wouldn't want to pick a winner.

Armstrong - Armstrongs too small at WW to take on a beast like Vernon

Ross - also too small, slower, no equaliser

Duran - interesting match up, especially as Forrest is Hearns-lite in many ways. I can see Duran playing the same mind games as Mayorga, even if he didn't his ability to slip jabs and throw fast leads/counters at any range is problematic. Forrest has the size/range/jab to keep it on the outside though. I wouldn't really want to put money on this right

Mayweather - tough fight for Mayweather, Forrest is nearly as quick, far more range, excellent jab/timing. Forrest could wing his punches and have problems on the inside, would Mayweather take advantage of this, or be outboxed at range? Not 1 I'd bet on

Curry - I wouldnt want to pick a winner

Mayorga - beat him in the rematch imo

Honeyghan - a better version of Mayorga, I wouldn't want to pick a winner

Delahoya - hes better than DLH, he can outjab and outspeed Oscar. OScar would have to look for a late KO like he did against Quartey. I think Forrest cleanly outpoints him

Quartey - Yes Quartey probably beat him, prime for prime I'd say it'd be closer, Quartey's tighter defense maybe wins out though

Whitaker/Benitez -Forrest has the speed, jab, range to pull it out against these 2 who would play a defensive slipping and countering role and may get outscored by Forrests jab and fast hands

Mosley - beat him twice in his prime

Cuevas - knocks him out, Forrest tees off unanswered on Cuevas's open defenser

Palomino - Forrest UD, can't see Palomino beating him

 

He'll give every All Time Great at welterweight problems to say the least. He would in my opinion beat Whitaker.

 

Dam there is a lot of experts on this site.

 

Very good. Kind of a slow starter. Not particularly fast of hand and foo., ke was still tought to face because he possessed a terrific jab and was such an accurate precise puncher who put he shots together extremely well. And while he wasn't a one punch threat, he still still hit hard enough to get most anyone's atttention when he was at his best.Plus, once he got into any sort of groove, it was tough to find a way to break his rythm.

Kind of reminds me a bit of Palomino in that last regard and Mayorga fight notwithstanding I think I'd rate the Viper as being at the level when he was on.

 

You foremost among them of course.

 

Good post, i think i'd put him a slight notch below Palomino overall though.

One thing that annoyed me about Forrest was that he was the one responsible for starting the run of rather limited beatable Welter champions since then, when he seemingly did have the technical talent to be a few levels above those guys.The focus wasn't there though, i've never thought he wanted it enough.

 

It is kind of funny you guys have completely opposite to the extreme opinions of Forrest.

 

i do think he was a very good fighter to be fair, just with some glaring flaws.

 

A very good fighter with a good jab, defense and was a all around technician.

 

Nah i wasn't coming at you or being funny mate, i was just asking as i said, for insight.

Thanks for the reply. By the way, when i said history's finest offensive men i didn't mean the likes of Mosley, Mayweather, De La Hoya or Quartey.

I don't see him beating Walker myself, no way actually. I like Forrest plenty, like i said on the first page, one of my faves to just watch of our era. I reckon he'd have a great chance agaisnt Curry and that would be such an intriguing fight.

 

Yeah when he beat Mosley i thought we were in for a sustained championship reign as fans, and the championship just went from holder to holder very fast.