Skilled boxers who were one-dimensional

good points on this one, like that we're looking at more than brawlers.

joe louis-knew really only way to fight (as with canto, he was brilliant at it)
felix trinidad-not a ton of adaptability, showed his limits beautifully against winky
joe frazier-ok, maybe a bit of a brawler/swarmer/etc but pretty one dimensional

 

Frazier is the obvious answer here.

 

No, I'm not convinced Gene would qualify. Graham McNamee's call for NBC Radio in Tunney's title winning effort described him as "out Dempseying Dempsey," after Gene opened by slugging a rusty and inactive Jack hard, dulling him considerably. And slow motion frame-by-frame scrutiny of the movie film shows him brutalizing Heeney with hooks on the inside. There is footage of him (and numerous still shots) showing Tunney coming over the top with abrupt rights. And he maintains a sustained advance after retreating the first few rounds with Tommy Gibbons, surprising observers who thought they knew what to expect from Gene. After he eliminated his hand problems with some hard lumberjack work, he established that he could be a brutal customer to deal with.

 

It's a good reply.

He jabbed well against Bob Foster and in the rematch with Jerry Quarry (as well as ripping JQ's face open with the long right that ended matters), and made Ali miss often in the FOTC. Chuvalo and frequent observer Cosell were at least two prominent individuals who never questioned his skills. Smoke was much the better boxer against Cummings, yet still distinctly Frazier, even without his hook working as it once had. Moved well against Stander, and in the Foreman rematch, but nobody had to do a double take to be sure it was still Smoke.

 

If you're "one dimensional" and still have good boxing skills, then you must be, by definition a "boxer" type. Being skilled enough in that particular dimension, and having the prerequisite chin and speed..just a few natural physical gifts..it dosen't matter if you're not a slugger asr a puncher. Pretty damned good "skill set" if you ask me..."one dimensional" or not.

 

Tommy Loughran is a prime example here...he was one dimensional as hell...to his glory.

 

I know what you mean Nightcrawler, but you must agree that Louis boxed brilliantly against Max Baer..it was a virtuoso performance vs Max..he boxed, footwork was par excellance..as well as his clocking the Madcap's famous iron chin.Louis was far more multitalented than the other two examples you gave.

 

Just rattling on about it makes me want to post this..one of my favorite performances of anyone..
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5zkE4BkMgg[/ame]

 

Another great one dimensional master...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7KhqxIzy4[/ame]

 

and lest I omit the Grand Master of Negative Defensive Mastery....
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekHW6848CJM[/ame]

 

I don't know if I am understanding correctly, but to me it reads "name some one dimensional boxers". I think of guys like Calvin Grove, Bernard Taylor, maybe a Carl "The Truth" Williams, Howard Davis. Guys who had to rely on boxing skills because they weren't going to wear someone down or spark them out.

 

Their one dimensional but HAVE good boxing skills.... doesn't compute.

 

as long as that one dimension consists of being a skilled boxer, as opposed to being a slugger, swarmer, cutie, etc., it means that you're in pretty good shape as a pugilist. I guess while we're at it, we're referring to being an orthodoxed, textbook boxer. Otherwise, the thread named criteria would appear to be a bit vague.

 

It's criminal, I don't have it atsch Summat I'll have to get my hands on quickly, two top posters marking it out as a career best.

 

being one-dimensional is more about how a fighter uses the tools they have and the rhythmic variances in them than a particular style per se.

It's all about degrees in the end and talent plays a lot into it as well

Felix Trinidad is more multifaceted than Yory Boy Campas, Mamadou Thiam or someone like Colin Jones for example of a fighter with the same approach but less overall talent and thus less options even though he can probably matador a lesser opponent -relative to him with similar footwork- as Tito would use to handle him.He's still more one dimensional at world level.

Felix about on par with Zarate with and Louis for versatility, but imo is less skilled than either of them, not as smart a punchpicker etc but as far as being able\willing to fight certain ways against the world class field they're all comparable.

Azumah nelson much more versatile than Juan MAnuel Marquez, but not as skilled in a fair few technical areas.Canto not nearly as versatile as Harada or Chang, but more skilled and better boxing skills in the traditional sense.


Arguello not very versatile at all, but certainly has good skills.Pryor was more versatile than him, but had a lot more slop and "doing things wrong" about his style.


Lots of examples to fool around with.