McCallum vs Kalambay I &2 McCallum vs Toney I McCallum vs Watson Whitaker vs McGirt I & II Leonard vs Benitez Rafael Herrera vs Chucho Castillo Lomachenko vs Linares
Well, you went there, so I'm going to identify the problem with this thread. What is meant by pure boxer? An actual pure boxer as the term historically was meant to be applied, i.e. everything off a busy jab and lateral movement, working primarily long to mid with right hand glued and chin tucked, primary defense being feet but able to slip punches readily when found in range to be hit, style based firmly around adherence to the fundamentals (cases in point, Tippy Larkin, Johnny Famechon, Kennedy McKinney)? Or just the term 'pure boxer' thrown around loosely to describe any fighters perceived as especially skilled or 'slick' (e.g. the above nominations of guys like Lomachenko, RJJ)? Many refer to Mayweather as a pure boxer, to cite a conspicuous example. He was capable of fighting as a pure boxer, and at times did, as he was capable of fighting proficiently in just about any style, but a trade pure boxer he was not. Pure boxers don't lead with hooks and rights as habitually as he did. Pure boxing is a style. While Roy Jones is more decorated in the sport than, say, Bradley Skeete can ever dream of being, he's also much less of a pure boxer.
Though I'd say Laguna led more frequently with the back hand than a pure boxer should, these are good examples.
You know what a pure boxer is bro, someone who is close to always fighting behind a jab, managing distance, circling, etc
This brings up whether there's a difference between "pure boxer" (or, what I'd prefer, just "boxer") and "out boxer". I'd like there to be a distinction, where an out boxer is what you describe (someone who always wants to be at distance landing quick jabs to win a decision) while a boxer shows the full range of techniques (someone like Mayweather who has an inside game and a mid range game but lacks the power of a boxer puncher).
