I considered both Ricardo Lopez and more recently Ivan Calderon, same with Charlie Burley or Kid Gavilan. Their all close, but when taking in who they fought and how they beat them, I have to put the other 9 above them. I'm not denying the unreal skill of Lopez, the man could do everything in the ring, but as a showing of pure boxing skill, the other 9, in my opinion, are just slightly above him.
Mayweather isn't pure in any textbook sense. He does a lot of things that are technically worrying, unless you have fantastic physical attributes too. Not pure in my eyes.
Ok, now tell me when Pea was not focused on his opponent. His performances against Nelson and Chavez are perfect examples of a level of focus unmatched in a ring.
I agree ... but I do think that Mayweather is a pure boxer ... he a combonation of alot of those older fighters listed. He shows signs of most them during his time as an active fighter.
I never said anything was wrong with sweet pea showboating ... if the guy can't hit him and he's trying his hardest ... he's looking like a fool reguardless of what Whitaker does. I also like Whitaker's southpaw jab and his movements in the ring ... I don't know if Whitaker like Mayweather was comfortable in every part of the ring ... he was never able to be cornered (except for Tito)
Benny Leonard was the man who set the standard for the modern boxer. Apart from "The Ghetto Wizard," his nickname was simply "The Master Boxer." I know a lot of people haven't seen B. Leonard or Loche, or a few other choices, but these are the best pure boxers I've ever seen, and as i said prevously, Lopez, Burley, Gavilan, Miguel Canto, Calderon, their all close, just not quite there.
Yes but he isn't a pure boxer, but rather a boxer-puncher who relied on his power several times in his career to close the show rather than his pure boxing skills. See the Randy Turpin performance at middle weight for an excellent example of this.
Jim Driscoll was an excellent pure boxer too, for his era at least. Not the greatest or anything, but worth checking out.
I'd say Lopez out of the past 20 years. Haven't watched enough old film to know about before then, so I'll refrain from voting.
This may be annoying that I'm just commenting on some of your posts, but I feel like putting my opinion in. When I started the thread, I was thinking Whitaker, but I voted for Pep. 65 kayo's in 229 wins with only 11 defeats is the record of an all-time master boxer. But to say Whitaker wasn't comfortable in the ring, is like saying he was a one punch kayo artist. I've never seen anyone more comfortable. His toying with opponents is a sign of it, his willingness to go forward against bigger men, or to exchange shots with a harder puncher as well. Pernell was cornered a few times, though not as much as Floyd, but that was due to his superior footwork, jab, workrate, and versatility. Floyd had problems staying off the ropes against a true pressure fighter. He was not comfortable from about round 4 or 5 on against Castillo.
I've heard of Jim Driscoll but haven't seen enough to comment on where he would be. Not saying he doesn't deserve to be mentioned, I just am not able to rate him.
The level of respect on this board for Mayweather's technical ability astounds. He isn't a great fighter technically - he does some things very well techncially and some things badly. Cotto is a better fighter, technically, than Mayweather is, by some distance. From the poll, I voted for Pep, but Duran should be on there in my view. And I may have voted for him.
Someone said most of these guys aren't even pure boxers. I'd like to know of the 9 choices, who wasn't a pure boxer? Because they had power or speed doesn't take away from their boxing ability. So if you like "who was the most skilled boxer" more than "best pure boxer," fine, think of this thread as that.
agreed ... :good you gave a list of attributes and it seems like most posters are avoiding that criteria --