Who are the Textbook boxers?

i rate sweet pea and pep number 1 and two on defense but not textbook skills per se. boxing is both offense and defense and pep especially was lacking in offense. pep was breathtaking in his body punching and combos but it's tough to put him up.

from what i've heard and read, harold johnson would be in my top 5. i hate going off reputation but he is universally thought to be one of the greatest techicians in history. i don't know if he'll make my top 5 but roberto duran did EVERYTHING so well it's tough for him not to be considered. also in contention would be azumah nelson, he did everything so ****ing well he was an atg talent, even without being the hardest hitter or slickest skillmans.

 

Hopkins always stresses proper foot positioning and balance. Without it, you can see an opening but can't generate proper leverage to make the most of your punch or it can result in a knock down if your opponent hits you at the right time. Hopkins is always on balance and his footwork is impeccable.

I've heard Hopkins state that power is more about proper timing and foot positioning than raw power. If you have both, you can generate power.

 

Such as?

Do you mean his sneaky right hand? I would consider that textbook as long as you throw it at the right time and protect yourself properly, which he does.

 

Floyd is an interesting one.. as I think if he wasn't as physically gifted as an athlete with that speed of his.. he'd be considered a great 'pure boxer'. Ofcourse then you can say, "well then same goes for RJJ" -- but what I mean is, Floyd is a boxer that doesn't rely on power nor strength nor his physical gifts (while helpful) but rather TECHNIQUE.

He isn't textbook ofcourse, far from it. But a 'pure boxer' -- that's an argument that isn't TOO hard to make when ppl call a man like sweetpea with those ridiculous reflexes & reaction times a 'pure boxer'.


or, we can just keep it nice n simple & exclude those with freakish gifts.. which also means excluding pernell as a PURE boxer (which isn't pleasing to most ppl).

in that case, the best pure boxer in the world today is JMM. no question. but u all knew that!


again, semantics -- what a wonderful thing

 

i think so, too, as I already said.

but others, don't immediately understand the difference

& furthermore, what i was really referring to is the concept of PURE boxer.


Sweetpea, as I said, sometimes gets so much love (and i do <3 him, just as i <3 morales & barrera but never go overboard with the tribal love/hate which leads to a loss of objectivity) that if you question whether his freakish reflexes & reactionary gifts should mean he is not included as a 'pure boxer' (just like RJJ), you get the kitchen sink thrown at you.

It is a reasonable question to raise, no?

 

:good:good:good Agree 100%

 

Floyd, Hopkins. Honorable mention to James Toney and Wlad.

 

Whether it comes across as robotic or not, I find a lot of the Euro boxers to be what I consider "textbook"

 

all time - joe louis

 

very good pick, at least in terms of his punching. by the time he reached his peak he was much improved in the basics, distance, timing, rolling with punches.

 

Would Lewis be classed as a great textbook fighter?

 

wonna see textbook in action? get some tapes of Carlos Zarate for a classic "textbook" stance/style

 

JMM
Hopkins
Kessler