Top 3 P4p Boxers In History

Stonehands. Flawed technique was among his assets when he was at his best, no question. That was part of his make-up. Fighters stepping into the ring with Ali found his whole style confusing to fathom and penetrate. Yes, his speed and athletcism were the reasons why his flawed technique was effective. But when it came to Ali you have to package both together and look his overall style. It worked for him, so I guess this is why I'm praising his lack of fundementals. I'm saying if Ali didn't have brilliant speed then his technque could then be critisized. More than likely he would have been hit on a regular basis and became a less effective fighter. But when looking at Ali their is no question his unorthodox manner worked for him, thus the reason I praise rather than critisize. Some fighters out there do everything well when it comes to fundementals, yet are easier to hit than Ali. Are you getting a feel for what I'm now trying to say?

 

Ali certainly had some technical issues, but I am not ready to call his technique crap and say he just got by on reflexes.

In shape, his stance was technically correct; his forward and backward movement were technically correct; his lateral movement was technically correct; his leverage, punching, combinations and follow through were technically correct; his cover-up was technically correct; his counterpunching technique was correct; his punch slipping was technically correct.

His left hook was rather wide; he absolutely refused to raise that right hand and protect against the left hook, too often just standing straight up and leaning back moderately. He had no real body attack, which to me limited him gravely against Ken Norton.

SO, he had technical deficiencies, as any fighter does, but in his prime his overall style was perfectly suited for his own unique gifts and he was smart enough to get the most of them per his own purposes. That's pretty much the definition of success.

Now, in Manila, he showed he could fight inside well against one of the bests in Frazier, going all out, no excuses, several times in the fight. And in the Holmes fight he uncharacteristically had those hands up properly in the final rounds, when reduced to defense. These things show me Ali knew more than he normally displayed; he just usually stuck to his own style. Why tamper with success?

 

Unorthodoxy is not necessarily flaws. Unorthodoxy can be highly effective at times. Flaws are risky.

 

You seem to agree that Ali's technique was flawed. I don't believe that it was crap and that he "got by" on reflexes -not for a moment.

I would not write off Ali's flaws by comparing it to the expected flaws every fighter has. Ali had more flaws that most HWs, and more than just about all HW champions. But it didn't cost him until the 70s, because he was undeniably great and developed unusually due to an unusual set of assets.

 

No, of course they weren't. No one is, and in these cases Ali proved it. But this started with me saying that Ali, to my knowledge, was the only one who had defeated two fighters that were seen as invincible before he fought them.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I just wanted to point at that he wasn't as useless in this aspects as some like to claim. He could go to the body quite effecticely at times, like he did against Spinks in their rematch. And he showed in Manilla that he could hold his own pretty well on the inside against Frazier (even if he of course never could beat Frazier at this distance). But he was of course by no means among the greats when it came to bodypunching and infighting.

Well, here we just disagree, I suppose.

The same as the other times we use p4p. This is of course highly speculative, but isn't p4p discussions always? In short, in relation to his size Ali was the fastest. That's the claim. For example; SRR was a harder puncher p4p than Ali, and Ali was faster p4p. He was probably faster period, but you see what I mean.

 

On this forum I think for example Louis is treated with much more reverence. No one goes around claiming "yeah, he really lost to Godoy, Farr, Pastor and Walcott". Or "he was exposed every time he fought a slick boxer, and he couldn't handle swarmers. He really had 1-2 against Walcott and Charles, the best boxers he fought, and 0-2 against the best swarmers he fought, Godoy and Marciano".

 

I think that speed and power are not as measurable p4p as, say, overall "greatness" p4p. It really requires complete speculation. I for one don't buy that Ali was faster than Robinson and the frame by frame "test" that "proved" it. I think that they were looking for it to be so and so chose a rapid fire combo by Ali and compared it to a random one by Robinson. It's like what they claimed about Bruce Lee -that he had the PSI of George Foreman. Surrrre he did!

Overall though, we settled this fairly enough, I think we banged things out enough to see where we respectively stand.

 

Perhaps. I revere all champions, but do resond to what I see as any glorification of anyone by anyone, irregardless of whether there are groupies or not. Personally, Duran's my favorite fighter, but I'll throw shots at anyone claiming that he was the best boxer who ever lived.

 

More than likely a fighter who's unorthodox with his overall style will have more flaws than a fighter who fights in an orthodox fashion IMO. I know what you mean as fighters use different types of technique to do the same things like block, cover up to the body, and counter, etc. But Ali abondomed many things and many other things he never done well, which are flaws. But those flaws he got away with due to his speed and athleticism.

 

...but flaws aren't praiseworthy, despite his ability to get away with them due to his excellent quickness and later, his indomitable heart and will.

That is the crux of this. Flaws are flaws -they don't become virtues because the possessor of those flaws was great.

 

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle in this discussion.

It seems to me deep inside you believe Ali to be terribly flawed. Could you please outline those flaws one by one?

I happen to believe Ali did exactly what you assert about Whitaker: he expounded on fundamentals because he was a stylist. And IMO he did have that foundation of fundamentals; he was not a pure athletic innovator, nor simply got by on speed and athleticism.

On balance, I would say there are many more textbook fundamentals you can learn from Ali than "flaws" you would have to discard if teaching a newbie. Of course, you will not teach the newbie to fight like Ali or, without the speed, he'll get killed, but the basics of boxing are of course essentially there, as Ali did not fight using wrestling or kung fu basics, did he.

Ali's foundation was boxing fundamentals, not anything else. Sure, he held his hands low, but, with Ali, to me that was akin to a fighter returning to his corner. He's not going to go back with his hands raised because, though you must protect yourself at all times, at that particular moment he is not in jeopardy, as his opponent is safely going back to his own corner. Ali was so fast and judged distance so well he knew his opponent couldn't hit him, so why raise your hands? Apart from this and a few other examples of unorthodoxy, born of his superior speed and athleticism, Ali built on nothing other than boxing fundamentals: he threw orthodox jabs, hooks, uppercuts, straight rights and combinations, as opposed to a truly flawed fighter who would have thrown punches like a Youtube Bruce Lee hitting the heavy bag. His lateral movement was perfectly orthodox, as opposed to, say, getting his feet crossed and tangled as would have been the case of a truly flawed fighter.

You cannot improvise successfully at the highest levels, as Ali did, without a foundation of proper basics. These then give you the freedom to expound, just like the musical scales. Ali's knowledge of the sport was very important in his defeating Foreman: he knew how to time and land an accurate, powerful straight right, as well as slip punches, two pretty fundamental aspects of the game. But he expounded to the point that he did extremely unorthodox things in that ring, which worked for that particular crisis. This is exactly the reason why he knew he would beat Foreman: his superior knowledge of the sport; this is why he disdained Foreman as nothing but a bully front runner, whom he, by his own account, challenged saying: "Lemme see ya box." He knew George couldn't.

Ali is boxing fundamentals expounded on by unique genius and talent.

 

I think this is a very good post. He should have slipped more punches in the textbook way, though. Especially when he got older. That I see as a flaw.

 

Thanx, Bokaj. Perhaps you could explain a bit on your view of textbook slipping, as IMHO Ali's head movement in his prime was pretty standard...and offered excellent protection.

As for the thread topic, my other two votes are for Robinson and Duran.

 

When he slipped a punch it was usually by simultanously moving out of reach. Similirarily, when he ducked it was usually by bending his upperbody forward, not bending at the knees, and thereby coming in close on his opponent and forcing a clinch. I would have like to see him slip and duck while still staying in reach of his opponent, in the "pocket", and thereby being able to counter directly.

 

I'd like to take a slightly different angle on this

If you take P4P to litrerally mean relative difference in weight then
my list, subjective as it is, is heavily influenced by achievement against fighters of greater weight...

So how about
1.) Jimmy Wilde
2.) Barbados Joe Walcott
3.) John Edward Kelly

Sam Langford might belong in here but he is the LARGEST of these - LOL