The most successful fighters with questionable ring IQ?

Names?

 

Leon Spinks

/thread.

 

George Foreman
Oscar de la Hoya

 

Riddick Bowe, baby.

 

What about Wlad Klitschko?
When facing a taller, longer, faster fighter in Fury, he tried to box with him the whole fight, even when it was obvious from the first few rounds that he needs to walk this guy down and apply pressure, for example the way Mayweather did with Mcgregor.

Is that low ring iq or just a limited 1d fighter?

 

Paul Williams, to a degree.

Hatton, Canelo, Cotto, Benn, Barkley, Bruno, Morrison.

Those spring to mind.

 

Naseem Hamed. Never showed much sign of nous or technical improvement (if anything he seemed to get worse as far as the latter went). He managed to have a good career though with his power and reflexes.

 

Shane Mosley. Had it all but ring IQ.

It was shown in his both losses to Forrest and Wright.

 

I've never thought that Hagler was a particularly great tactician, actually. Brilliant instinct fighter, but every now and then he had a tendency to over-complicate matters, and it cost him.

Take the first fights against Boogaloo Watts and Antuofermo, for instance. Now don't get me wrong, I think Hagler won both fights (Watts by a couple of rounds, Antuofermo by more than that), but he found a way to make them a lot closer than they needed to be, and in both cases seemed to switch off at the mid-way point. At medium range he was in a different class to both guys and was taking them apart, but he stopped working against Watts and got bossed on the inside when he needed to be working, and went too back-foot for no apparent reason against Vito down the stretch, letting Vito take a few rounds he really had no business winning through sheer workrate and muscle in close.

He seemed confused about how he wanted to approach the Duran fight and struggled against the same man who was outclassed badly either side of that by both Benitez and Hearns, and then of course came the Leonard fight. We can argue the decision back and forth, sure, but even those who felt Hagler should have retained his titles have to admit that he fought a shocking tactical fight. He basically gave away the first half of it.

Amazing fighter, absolutely awesome when he fought on instinct as a devastating, medium ranger boxer-puncher ala the Minter, Sibson and Hearns fights. But his ring smarts did let him down a few times.

 

Neither. Fury is just underrated and has a very good IQ. It seems all those stories about how Fury was getting the better of wlad in sparring years ago were true after all. It didn't help that Wlad was ancient when they fought for real but sometimes you just gotta say some fighters just has another fighters number.

 

Wlad is a good example actually. He fights to a script and if the fight takes a different direction he doesn't have a clue whats going on.
Take for example when Joshua got dropped and was recovering for the remainder of the round - Wlad pawed and threw the same telegraphed left hook over and over again from the exact same position.
He didn't have the boxing brain to throw some feints , come in from different angles , throw a right hook , or even throw body shots.
And the Fury fight is another great example - the dude looked like a fish out of water in there that night. Adaptability level= zero.

 

Amir Khan (I guess he is/was successful?)

 

Arturo Gatti

 

You could argue Jerry Quarry.

 

I think it's more that it exposed his limitations (one dimensionality seems harsh though). Wlad is best at a preferred range, but Fury had the size, hand speed, and skills to outbox him at that range, to make him miss and catch him coming in.