Most inconsistent boxer ever?

Fritzie Zivic is the correct answer.

 

All in prime condition
Monzon
Hopkins
Hagler
GGG
Michael nunn
James Toney
Jones jnr
That’s off the top of my head,7 definitely. All the fighters listed were better than the fighters he won and lost to at 160 imo. Some above there doesn’t need a rematch if they fought. Nothing but rose tinted glasses thinking he’s no1 at 160 ever, he didn’t dominate his time winning and losing it so often. Welter and if there was a 154 division at the time is another story, but 160 he’s a little overrated imo

 

James Toney (one of my favorite boxers) is far and away the most inconsistent, high level boxer ever.
From p4p #1 to oblivion back to p4p elite. Widely considered one of the most skilled boxers ever stylistically, but could stink up the joint and lose to a journeyman. His level of inconsistency is other wordly.

 

Monzon, B-Hop, Jones and Hagler - fair enough. Can definitely see all of those. But GGG, Nunn & Toney? Why??? Who has GGG beaten to even come close to being mentioned here.

I don't think he's number one - or two, or three - but he wasn't winning and losing the title in his time. Before his three year retirement, he lost it once against one of the best middleweights of the era (and arguably the best British MW of all time) in a fight which he had fought four times in three different countries in the month leading up to it. He won it back in his next fight. Aside from that, he has ZERO other losses at 160 before his retirement. It's just as much rose-tinted glasses to say that Robinson doesn't have an argument as it is to say GGG or Nunm beat him.

 

You’ve mentioned 4 that beat him, it’s the same standard four that’s always mentioned, it’s like set in stone with old fighters, modern fighters don’t stand a chance it seems. Nunn I think could our point him easier than the four you mentioned, GGG is bigger stronger and tougher, a true 160 fighter. Toney is as gifted as any man who ever entered the ring. Who do you think Hopkins or Monzon beat for you to say he beats SRR at 160 ? I agree they do beat him but I can’t see the opponents they fought at 160 that backs that up, your logic I’m using

 

Nuts that he was beating bowe without the low blows then just started throwing them anyway like I’ve always wondered why

 

Yes, because they stand the best chance of beating him.

You do realise that Jones and Hopkins are more modern tahn Toney and Nunn, right?

How does Nunn beat him? Does he out-box him? Out-speed him?

GGG being a 'true middleweight' is irrelevant. He's no bigger than Jake LaMotta. And he's not better than Jake enough to reverse the ass-whupping Robinson gave him in their sixth fight.

Toney was nowhere near as gifted as Roy Jones. As seen by what happened in their fight. Do you think Robinson wasn't capable of sticking to a stick-and-move plan? With his speed and jab, beating him like that would be easy.

It's not using my logic because I don't think they beat him

But to answer your question, both Monzon and Hopkins proved themselves as top five middleweights and dominated their opponents. Hopkins made 20 defences and beat guys like Pavlik, Wright and Tito. Monzon made 14 and beat Griffith, Valdez and Nino. More than proven enough to pick them over anybody. They also look much better on film than others.

 

I can’t see the difference in Hopkins reign an GGG’s. Both proved they were great from longevity, not opposition. Tito wasn’t a atg at 160 an neither were the others, who incidentally both lose to G, do you agree with that much ??

 

Canelo

 

Hopkins proved himself great with by making 20 defences and dominating the division. He then went on a ridiculously good run in his 40s two weight divisions above. GGG hasn't proved himself great through any means. Nine title defences doesn't make you great immediately, and barely scraping by Daniel Jacobs definitely doesn't. And TBH it's no given that GGG beats Pavlik or Wright, both are better than Jacobs.

 

We are on about middle though, forget what he done at 175(Hopkins). I think he’s defended more than nine times. If your calling Hopkins great at 160 then GGG is too by your logic, by domination. Tito was a great welter, not a great middle, an winky isn’t a huge win at 160. You think Jermaine Taylor beats GGG ? No me neither.

 

What he did at a higher weight solidifies what he'd be able to do at a lower weight. Like how what Mickey Walker did at HW shows what he'd be able to do at 147. And no, that's not true. By my logic, GGG would have to prove himself great if he didn't lose any rounds to Jacobs. And if he made 20 title defences, not nine (and yes, it is nine). I never said they were great wins at MW. I said that they were better wins than GGG's, and they are. And actually, as it happens, I can absolutely see Prime Taylor beating a 40 year old GGG.

 

GGG is finished at 40, Hopkins had a later start and far less miles on the clock and a different style. Taylor that fought Hopkins was no great fighter. One question bro, you American ??

 

How did Hopkins have less miles on the clock? He's had a much harder career. And I'd pick Taylor over a younger than forty GGG too. None of that is relevant anyway. GGG has done nothing to make him favourite over Robinson. Hopkins has done a lot more, and I wouldn't make him favourite either.

And no, I'm not American, but I am offended that you thought I was.

 

Hopkins as a middleweight has less miles yes, GGG and the rest of the EE fighters have longer and more fights as an amateur in general, much more, take into account the spell in the chokey too, Hopkins is well preserved in comparison at the same age at middle without a doubt