How good was Vernon Forrest?

Meh. Vernon was about 6'2, had a huge reach and a solid 1-2. That is a handful for any Welterweight, ever. Don't see him as a superskilled technician though.

 

Of course, history has better technicians. Someone like Napoles who could manipulate range regardless of not being tall, keep centre ring and exploit openings with combinations, of course that level of technician is better than Forrest. But Forrest is still one of the best technical boxers of his era. Hopkins is way ahead of him though, of course. The likes of Napoles and even Hopkins, they just have more aspects to their game than Forrest.

 

I wouldnt say Hopkins was way ahead of him. Maybe in the footwork department he is. Technically not really.

 

From a stylistic perspective, in a head to head, all that Forrest has over Napoles is natural size at the weight. Nobody's taking prime Napoles on the jab on a level playing field. Maybe some excpetions throughout history exist.

 

I think he is. Hopkins' defense is light years ahead of Forrest's, and from a technical standpoint as well. Some fighters like Joshua Clottey say, show a good defense because they block shots. Hopkins' opponents are hardly ever in position to land against him. The man is the most complete technician of our time, including Mayweather. Mayweather is better, better at what he does enough for him to be deemed better overall in an effective sense. But Hopkins is the all round man. That's why he's apparently 'boring', because he absolutely schools lesser opposition. I've never gotten my head around this boring thing, there's nothing better than watching someone like Bernard Hopkins showing the world how to box.

 

Good points teeto. As I understand him, Forrest is outstanding technically at the one dimension he possesses in abundance: using his size to good effect, staying behind long straight punches (jab, jab-right) and tying a guy up when he tries to close the gap. As Mante pointed out, the problem is that he's not well-rounded, and suffers terribly against anybody who can take that one dimension away from him, even somebody on Mayorga's level. Certainly someone like Napoles who built ATG-ness on being able to take that kind of fighter's bread and butter away would chew him up and spit him out.

 

Speaking of Hopkins, I always thought that Forrest had an Hopkins esque type performance against Mosley, especially in the first fight. His use of the clinch and punches on the inside is why I feel that way I guess.

 

Great post.

Hopkins is by far the greatest/best technician of this era (and it's not close) and up there with anybody great I'm aware of on film. You can make arguments for Mayweather being the better fighter but there's no question over who's the better technical man.

 

Yeah Napoles feasts on textbook standup types at Welter and below.A fight with Forrest would resemble the Cokes bouts at best for Vernon. Forrest is more comparable to Cokes than an athletic/powerpunching beast like Hearns.Bigger and maybe slightly quicker, but not as much finesse or poise.

 

:good glad we see eye to eye on Napoles' stylistic attributes here. To be fair to Forrest though, he wasn't just jab jab right hand exclusively. But that was what made him successful when observing the wider picture i agree.

 

And we see eye to eye again!

 

Well said. Cokes had a lovely right hand himself.

 

Seen Hopkins vs Calzaghe/Wright/Jones? They are truly some of the most boring high level fights. Hopkins has been in plenty of absolute stinkers.

 

When has Forrest shown defensive lapses besides getting a little careless against Mayorga?

 

Was his defence ever notable?.It was pretty basic stuff.