Name a fighter, then another who's style is closest.

Only thing they have in common is the high defense. Wright was a southpaw with an excellent jab, a high workrate, good countering skills, and wasnt a choker. Clottey is a spurt fighter. And Clottey is nowhere near Wright's league.

And Pryor n Manny really arent very similar. There really hasnt been a fighter like Pryor. The Hawk was so unorthodox, and threw from so many different angles it was ridiculous. Everything about his style was so technically wrong, yet he made it work to his advantage.

 

.

Ismael Laguna and Luis Rodriguez.

Virgil Hill? Willie Pastrano? Manny Medina?

 

Wow you nailed that SS.:good

There was a bit of Jose Napoles in Estean Dejesus for me, but i think the thing that separates them is the difference in ability/greatness, and hence an edge in favour of Napoles, and then as a derivative from that the fact that Napoles was not only better but in my opinion slightly more versatile effectively. But clearly Dejesus himself was quite complete in a stylistic sense if nothing else.

Carlos Monzon and Ivan Drago.

Joe Frazier and Dwight Muhammad Qawi.

Julio Cesar Chavez and Jose Luis Castillo when at their most effective, and yes everyone i'm aware that Chavez was more versatile by way of his ability to box with composure, but let's have this right, when they went on offense it was a strikingly similar approach.

Jimmy Carter and Ike Williams.


Harry Greb and Maxie Rosenbloom (kidding)

Has Tyson and Patterson been mentioned?

 

Fuk i've just read back and mine have been mentioned.

Honest!

 

For me Benny Lynch is like a primitive (i hate using that word) version of Erik Morales, in the sense that his approach to a fight is he is going to knock the **** out of you with a high work rate and a killer punch. The obvious evolution is clear in Morales of course.

For me Oscar De La Hoya is not a poor man's Kid Gavilan but a poverty stricken one, Gavilan doing eveything simply better.

 

Manny Pacquiao & Aaron Pryor

Not identical but similar in a lot of ways.

 

nice never though of Lynch and Morales. great choice

they both were skilled boxers who would knock you out and wanted too.

They used there skills and high workrate to destroy you then they would got to war.

I dont see the evolution though maybe Morales is a bit smoother but i think Lynch is the better fighter

 

Thanks, you have to bring up the evolution thing round here otherwise you catch a lot of headaches in the form of everyone bombarding you because Lynch held his hands low, couldn't be arsed with it, it was late when i made that post!

 

He just looked like a bigger Miguel Canto in the ring. By stylistically inverted I mean that while he was more prone to slugging it out, he had the same stance, positioning, subtle slipping and counter-punching, and overall underrated technical skills, often reminiscent of Canto regard to his jab, positioning, and just the feel of his style. Again, by stylistically inverted I mean they both shared similar qualities, but chose to emphasize different aspects.

 

Willie Pep/Ralph Dupas/Willie Pastrano

Jose Napoles/Rodolfo Gonzalez

 

Switch Ken Buchanan's stance around and Joel Casamayor is not far removed. Both like to fight back when confronted with pressure, both emply lateral movement and both use quality boxing ability to dominate the centre of the ring with ring generalship, rather than 'running'

 

yeh maybe an evolution as you say. infact certainly the gloves became bigger so more protection so they was used more for blocking.

However defncivly i say Lynch is better.

Kens not as dirty

(not saying much though)

But i see the comparison. good one never thought of it