How important are aesthetics in rating a fighter?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Jel, Jul 18, 2018.


Page 3 of 3
  1. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,156
    13,125
    Jan 4, 2008
    Ok. I rarely, if ever, use that word, but if did it would probably be about someone who had met varied opposition of a high level.
     
    Bokaj, Jul 19, 2018
    Bokaj, Jul 19, 2018
    #31
  2. Contro

    Contro Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,882
    4,700
    Jun 7, 2016
    just not in need of one.
    He jabbed in some fights when he felt like it.
    If he was afraid of jabbing he wouldn't have jabbed against the biggest puncher he ever faced, John Ruiz.
    He also jabbed against Trinidad.

    A jab is much less risky than a straight right which throws your bodyweigt forward and squares your shoulders up.
    You can jab going backwards or any direction you like. You can jab with your right hand covering the left side of your face to cover you from a counter right.

    Jab is not a risky punch.
    However a leaping left uppercut or a lead right haymaker to the stomach from the outside sure is and Jones threw those. So no he wasn't afraid to jab. Sorry



    If you don't find prime RJJ to be one of the most impressive fighters on film then you're blind.
    We can argue about his chin or his resumee but not about how good he looked. He looked superhuman from 94-99
     
    Contro, Jul 19, 2018
    Contro, Jul 19, 2018
    #32
  3. red cobra

    red cobra Loyal Member Full Member

    38,042
    7,560
    Jul 28, 2004
    Yet he was just as effective with the rope-a-dope as was Ali.
     
    red cobra, Jul 19, 2018
    red cobra, Jul 19, 2018
    #33
  4. Jel

    Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

    7,834
    13,128
    Oct 20, 2017
    Well, I think that understates his boxing abilities somewhat. Attitude? Yes. Charisma? Sure. But it was his fighting style and complete dominance of opponents that impressed more. He could dominate on the inside but still defend and his outside game improved as the decade wore on.

    Lacks wins over other great fighters? Well, in his peak years in the 70s he didn't meet all the biggest names that he could have fought during that period - Arguello or Cervantes, for instance (fights I think he would have won, by the way) - but Marcel, Buchanan, DeJesus (x2), Palomino and Leonard (all world champions) are pretty impressive scalps, I'd say.
     
    Jel, Jul 19, 2018
    Jel, Jul 19, 2018
    #34
  5. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,135
    44,934
    Mar 3, 2019
    In terms of actual greatness on P4P lists? Zilch. Achievements are moreso what I take into account when I make my lists, P4P or at individual weights.

    I do actively prefer aesthetically pleasing fighters though. Guys like Napoles, Canto, Hearns, Rodríguez, Benítez, Chocolatito, Gavilán ect. naturally end up being took more to my liking than the ugly, smothering, groping type.
     
    George Crowcroft, Mar 2, 2020
    George Crowcroft, Mar 2, 2020
    #35
    roughdiamond likes this.
  6. greynotsoold

    greynotsoold Boxing Addict

    5,538
    7,111
    Aug 17, 2011
    This is very true. People have an idea of what a good fighter should look like but they have no clue about what an actual fighter does to make himself effective. If a guy is 108-4 and he doesn't pass your "eye test" it could be because he only fought 'cans' or it could be because he found a way to be effective that you are not observant enough to understand.
    And slick...
    The idea of a slick fighter has changed drastically over the years. In my mind, nobody fights enough to master the subtleties and nuances that make a guy slick. The term today is applied to anybody that moves.
     
    greynotsoold, Mar 2, 2020
    greynotsoold, Mar 2, 2020
    #36
    roughdiamond likes this.
Page 3 of 3