I always thought Rafael was more complete then Juan Manuel since he has more power for his weight and is a better finisher.
Robinson was not defensively sound enough to be considered in this thread. Leonard appeared pretty complete, though I believe Joe Calzaghe excells a little more, especially in the way his offense and defense meld together into one force, a better than perfect perpetual fighting enity. Why doesn't the rest of the world see this? It is unbelievably frustrating. Nobody can ever dispute my claims, no other fighter is as brilliant as Joe Calzaghe. No-one is as unbeatable on their day, not even Roy Jones Junior.
You're not frustrated at all, you're just trying to frustrate others with your nonsense. You're a troll. I'll leave it at that so as not to be sucked into another one of your mind-numbingly idiotic debates, where you get exactly what you want, to **** me off with your ridiculous circular reasoning.
He has a bit more power, but isn't technically as good and doesn't have the same punches in his arsenal.
There are morons who claim Robinson is the best ever, do you at least appreciate that is a lot, lot more far-fetched than my claims? Of course the reasoning is circular, it comes back to one point, which everything points too. Joe Calzaghe is highly likely one of(we can't prove it, or know it is true 100% - but it fairly obvious he is up there) the best fighters ever. The jab, the cross, the hooks, the speed, the reflexes, the footwork, the chin, the timing, the accuracy, the mentality, the boxing IQ, the complimentry assets. You can also make a case for Roy Jones, based on him being the best physical specimin the sport has ever seen. But the Robinsons, the Durans, the Langfords and the rest?
Robinson is the best ever, Calzaghe at the moment is possibly not even top 100. In head to head terms, Robinson is definitely among the very top guys, and Calzaghe's stock rises, but not to the very top tier. So no, your claims are truly ******ed, their claims are legitimate. It's not the general point, it's the arguments you attempt to use to prove it, such as that a guy like David Starie was as good in terms of resume as a Sam Langford. That is the most ridiculous and absolutely foolish thing I've ever heard on a boxing forum. Amsterdam likes you, I can only assume it's because you're a good laugh, but if, in fact, you are just having a good laugh at all this, when will you ever be serious? He has a windmill style. Great footspeed and overall footwork, good handspeed with a great workrate and chin. Not exactly a brilliant pure boxer, though he does have a very good jab and has shown good out-boxing ability often. Does not make him unbeatable. Roy Jones for one would trash him. I understand your view on the old school fighters, but why throw Duran in there? Do you actually think Duran was primitive? In a P4P sense, he would have given Joe a beating.
SRR, obviously. But I also don't see any direct weaknesses in SRL, Hagler or Duran. I think SRL showed good infighting skills against Duran, even if he lost. But when it comes to the heavies I have a hard time finding someone who didn't at least have some flaws. Maybe Johnson, but that's so far back it's hard to tell.
Why is that such a moronic opinion. Lot's of people give Robinson the nod as being the best ever. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is, but he's certainly not a bad pick, that warrants being called a moron.
im not sure why i leave joe out of the arguement he does have mostly everything except the competition to prove it. his fault no.
SRR Carlos Monzon (Not the fastest or most gifted...but an incredible complete fighter) Roberto Duran Ray Leonard Those stand out for me...but the one I'd nominate is Salvador Sanchez...Mobility. Power. Speed. Chin. Defense. Boxing ability. You name it Sanchez could do it all. IMO.