Who was greater? Dick Tiger or Azumah Nelson?

Tiger was strong, particularly when compared to the fighters he fought as a middleweight. Arthur Mercante said he was the strongest fighter he ever had to break apart from a clinch. The tiger man was a hard hitter and he took a great punch. BUT he was one-dimensional. He didn't adjust very well to really top echelon boxers, guys like Giardello, Griffith, Archer, and Webb. Azumah Nelson was a great boxer. I say pound-for-pound a tossup.

 

Nelson looked poor at times, for example he was given a gift against Martinez and gave up the initiative in the second fight with Villasana and clowned about for rounds on end. He also got completely swarmed by Fenech in their first fight and couldn’t make any adjustments. Sure, he won the second fight, but then Tiger annihilated Webb in their second fight (admittedly when Webb came back after a hiatus and considered Tiger a soft touch)

Nelson was also well beaten by Whitaker, in fact he tried a few different approaches and was still way off.

Nelson was not a markedly better operator than Tiger IMO, all things considered, even if Tiger was relatively one dimensional. He was still the pinnacle of that style: fighting it out with him would be a disaster, whereas many guys had success with Nelson regardless of which tact he took.

I have Nelson in my top 100 of all time and in my top 10 o.a.t at 130, but he was a jack of all trades, master of none IMO. That’s not to denigrate his skill level, I’m a big fan of his, he was excellent, just an observation.

 

Nelson was run hard against Laporte too iirc, been many years since I've seen it though. He was versatile and skilled but sometimes seem to drift between styles to me and occasionally get caught in between. I'm not sure if he ever discovered what his favoured approach actually was in some fights, he sometimes gave that impression more than one of having a widely varied skillset under his complete control. Still an outstanding fighter though, make no mistake.

Tiger was better at what he did best imo despite not having the quickest feet and needing to be set to throw. Fast hands and a pinpoint counterpuncher who could feint and draw people onto his shots, and quite sophisticated defensively too. Able to slip and block with the best of them, just not the hardest fighter to turn if you had quick, educated footwork. And unbeatable for me if you took him on in a slugging match, great on the inside and insanely tough and strong. Plodding and somewhat unimaginative one second and then bursting an inch perfect 4/5 combo off your skull in the next breath.

 

I defer to those who know more about Azumah Nelson than I do.

 

Just watch all the fights I mentioned mate. All interesting and fun to watch, and perhaps you’ll see what myself and @Tin_Ribs are getting at

 

Very hard to say. They're both about even in terms of length of career, accomplishments, even similar stylistically. I think I want to lean toward Nelson, as he could box and slug, though essentially he was a puncher who stalked his opponents. Tiger was I think more earnest, but had fewer gears.

 

My thoughts exactly, well put.

 

Even though Torres was a small light heavy, I rank the MW-LHW world titles for Tiger as a superior achievement to Nelson winning straps at 126 and 130 but never unifying at either (was the main man at 130 though, no doubt in my mind)

 

Good points, and I might even agree about Tiger at 175, but to me those fights were as much about Torres losing them as Tiger winning. They were very winnable fights for Torres, who simply waited his titles away, refused to engage the smaller man. Cardinal sin, and it makes me rank Torres very far down the list of 175-pount titlists. He never should have lost either of those fights to Tiger.

Plus, Nelson was also the Man at 126 in his time there, as well as at 130.

 

Possibly when McGuigan didn’t fight him and then Cruz won the belt. That’s being ‘the man’ by default though, as after Sanchez died Pedroza was clearly the man, his more impressive dissection of Ford making him the perfect man to take on the mantle not just IMO but I believe in the eyes of ‘The Ring’

 

Yeah, but that was earlier. Nelson wasn't really "The Man" until December of '84 when he took Gomez apart. By that time Pedroza was on the decline and being taken the full 15 by people like Angel Levy Mayor.

 

That’s now how ‘the man’ works in my book mate. Yes, Pedroza didn’t look great (hence why I don’t rate McGuigan’s win over him too high) but he hasn’t been beaten, had the longer (and stronger) body of work and was still the champ. Nelson might’ve looked better, but ‘looking’ like the best in the world doesn’t mean they get credit for being the best in the world (at least not in my book, fine if you disagree of course)

 

Definitely a valid school of thought; I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.

 

Tiger was just that bit better than Torres I think, even at that advanced age and above his best weight. Plus Torres's style played perfectly to Tiger's strengths. His only real advantage was his closing footspeed and ability to cut off the ring, but as that wasn't the way to beat Tiger unless you were way bigger than him and that Torres wasn't the best fighting on the retreat.......

 

Ditto, very well expressed, la'.