You are confusing outside fighters with pure boxers. RJJ, SRR... guys like this are outside fighters but not pure boxers.
What is obvious is that "pure" is quite a subjective term. Boxing is like language, it is completely dynamic. What is seen as textbook and pure now, will likely be different in 50 years time. It is based around precedent. Just to prove the point, guys that were considered pure fighters of 1900 look way different to Pernell Whitaker. Willie Pep is nothing like Whitaker, really.
Wow! How shocking that Sweet Pea and PBF are so far (very early I know), the top choices. I respect Floyd and his excellent technical skills, though I don't see him being above Whitaker, who's recent enough so that most have seen him. You don't have to, but if you haven't seen much of Pep or Loche or B. Leonard, there should be some film on YouTube.
If someone wants to pick Robinson as the best pure boxer of all time, I think this position is defendable.
I think if anything that posters are convoluting the definition of a pure boxer. Pure boxer should really only mean one thing-- a boxer that relies almost exclusively on his boxing skills to carry him through. This doesn't imply that he can't get the KO, but that generaly he doesn't possess the power to do so or that the KO is not his aim but rather to box his way to a decision. Pep, Whitaker, Lopez... these guys were so good at boxing the man in front of them that they could do so over hundreds of rounds and win clearly without needing KOs. That to me is the definition of a pure boxer. The styles vary over different eras, but the rather the intent is what makes the pure boxer.
Hi friend. I'm pretty sick of repeating this so i'm just going to lay out one or two things. 1 - Hand positioning. Often to low, often wide. 2 - Lead left hook of the back foot. NOT a technically sound punch (though his punching form is generally excellent). 3 - He doesn't cover movement with a punch whilst in range, rellying upon athleticism to protect him from this technical shortcoming. 4 - Worst of all, he sometimes retreats in a straight line when he thinks he has his man hurt and is trying to negate aggression. Mayweather has technical prowess, and I wouldn't expect to have seen him drop of dramatically like Jones did, but he wasn't technically brillinat by any means. Vastly overated in this department.
acb, I never mentioned RJJ or SRR. Their not on the list for a reason. All I said in that qoute was a boxer's speed and power are natural gifts, but just because they have those attributes doesn't mean their not some of the most skilled boxers ever. Duran was not an outside fighter, but he's one of the greatest tactians I've ever seen, was always in place to punch, and had the best head movement probably of all-time. I know a skilled boxer doesn't have to be an "outside" boxer. The comment was that even though a guy like Ray Leonard had insane speed and solid power, making him a boxer/puncher, doesn't mean he wasn't one of the most skilled. The question is who was the most skilled. It's a very subjective question.
Ricardo Lopez was an excellent puncher as well as boxer. 38 of his 51 wins were by knockout, very high for a strawweight. His power doesn't take away from his skill though, so just forget what "pure" means. Who was the most skilled?
Just a question, but did the person who voted for "other" vote for Ricardo Lopez? I'm asking because I believe it's the best choice for "other," but if not, who did you vote for?