Who is the best defensive slugger among the heavyweights?

[Mendoza]

Well?

[Duodenum]

Challenging question, and I'll do what I can to answer, although I'd prefer that you elaborate some specific examples of who matches your classification of a slugger.

Assuming your context is understood correctly, I tend to go with Dempsey, if we classify him as a slugger rather than a swarmer or a boxer-puncher. Tunney stated he was only able to get three or four clear shots at a stale and rusty Dempsey in over 20 rounds of competition. He was at his best boxing short though, not quite as adept evading blows when forced to remain taller than his opponent. He's commonly thought of as an initiator, but he frequently landed by slipping first, before countering within his quarry's extended arm. (This was how he landed the right to Tunney's temple which set up the Long Count knockdown.) Of course he's the one who published "Championship Fighting: Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense." Shadowboxing for hours on end in a four foot cage will tend to turn one into an awfully small target to score on, especially if he's moving laterally in that pigeon-toed way of his. He also had the wrestling background necessary to clinch effectively when in trouble. (Cooney's inability to do this against Mike Spinks sealed his doom.)

At Tyson's peak, he was also fairly elusive, not so much by bobbing and weaving, but through canting his head from side to side. Unusually for a combatant with his style, he was widely acknowledged during his prime to be a competent defensive fighter, not the stereotypical "takes two punches to land one" aggressor. Frazier was a decent defensive fighter (if we earmark him as a slugger rather than a swarmer), but not a great one. His best defensive performance was probably in the rematch loss to Foreman.

Ingo's defense consisted primarily of retreating to draw his opposition into his right hand. In his style, he may have appeared to be the most timid of the heavyweight champions. (Recall how he was disqualified against Sanders in the 1952 Olympic finals for not trying.)

Jersey Joe Walcott made Marciano look easy to hit in the first round on their initial match, but he was a master boxer with 22 years of experience. It required a stylist with the class and experience of a Walcott, Mathews, LaStarza, Louis, Moore or Charles to make it appear that Rocky was a wide open target. (Once again Mendoza, this presupposes that you consider Marciano a slugger rather than a swarmer.)

Clinching by itself does not constitute good defense in my book, so Smith's tactics against Tyson ought not to be considered. (If he had taken out Mike in the final rounds, I might have to think twice about that. Still, he wasn't activley competing against either Frank Bruno or Tyson, and perhaps Harry Gibbs should have disqualified Bonecrusher for not trying against Bruno before the tenth round arrived.)

The crouch Jeffries developed with Tommy Ryan's held was effective for use on lesser opposition, but Corbett and Fitzsimmons were able to penetrate it to a significant extent.

My initial answer, assuming I've interpreted your question accurately, is to place Dempsey and Tyson at the top, at least among the champions, with Jack getting the edge by virtue of parlaying his elusiveness more into offensive opportunities. However, I'd rather have you shell out a list of names of those you consider stuggers, for providing a more clarified guideline.

[Sweet Science]

IMO a good candidate would be a young Mike Tyson. When he used head movement he was very elusive and we all know he could bang.

[ironchamp]

I tend to go with Tyson, During his peak years he was difficult to hit and his elusiveness coupled with ability to always remain in position to punch accounted for flash knockdowns and KO's.

Dempsey was good but IMO Tyson was more refined perhaps because his speed and relfexes are better than Dempseys it allowed him to execute better.


This is of course the expectation that you consider Tyson or Dempsey a slugger

[TBooze]

I think people forget sometimes that Tyson at his best had excellent footwork as well as the peak-a-boo style to help defensively.

In some ways the power that he had spoiled his abilites because he would of been just as a good fighter in his pomp even if he could not crack an egg with his punches.

Sure it would not of been as fun to watch him, but I think he may of got more respect from his critics if he gave amazing boxing performances in outpointing a Berbick, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs or Spinks rather than crushing KO's.

[cross_trainer]

Since he fought at heavyweight, Moore.

[Mantequilla]

Moore was a boxer puncher.

[Duodenum]

I tend to go with Tyson, During his peak years he was difficult to hit and his elusiveness coupled with ability to always remain in position to punch accounted for flash knockdowns and KO's.

Dempsey was good but IMO Tyson was more refined perhaps because his speed and relfexes are better than Dempseys it allowed him to execute better. Although this may be true, it's also important to take into account the primitive quality of hand activated movie film technology during Jack's prime, a deficiency exacerbated by transfer from film to videotape (and from 24 frames per second down to 12), and then from videotape to the sometimes heavily pixellated further dilutions of that material on-line.

There are plentiful copies of his two round exhibition with Luttrell from 1940, and at 45 years of age, Jack looks far more fluid in his movements as recorded electronically in live sound with automated equipment, than he did in his peak performance with Willard. In my own mind, I then try to extrapolate how Dempsey might have looked against Willard or Gibbons with 1940's camera technology.

[Mendoza]

Challenging question, and I'll do what I can to answer, although I'd prefer that you elaborate some specific examples of who matches your classification of a slugger.

You’re right. I need to clarify. To rephrase the question, which heavyweight known for knocking his man out had the best defense?

I think we all know what a knock out puncher is. Defense for the purpose of this thread means not getting hit cleanly through use of movement, blocking, using one’s natural height, or clinching.

I have to think about this one myself, but the names Jeffries, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, and Vitali Kltischko come to mind.

[JohnThomas1]

Tyson's defense was superb in his best days.

[Bokaj]

I'm surprised no one mentions Frazier. I'm not saying he's definitely nr. 1 in this regard, but he should be considered. At his best he was really hard to hit considering his style.

[Polymath]

I'm surprised no one mentions Frazier. I'm not saying he's definitely nr. 1 in this regard, but he should be considered. At his best he was really hard to hit considering his style.

Frazier was EASY to hit. He didn't weave he just 'bobbed' :lol:

Tysons' bob and weave > Fraziers ineffective twitching and nodding

[godking]

Its a choice between Tyson or Demspey for infighters with great defense .

Liston and Vitali cannot be considered because they where more boxer puncher then ''slugger''

[Bokaj]

Frazier was EASY to hit. He didn't weave he just 'bobbed' :lol:

Tysons' bob and weave > Fraziers ineffective twitching and nodding

I don't agree. Douglas didn't seem to have too much trouble hitting Tyson, while Ali (a much sharper puncher) did quite a lot of missing in his first fight against Frazier. When good fighters really tried to hit Tyson, and not just survive, they managed pretty well, I would say.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm going to throw Marciano a bit of a lifeline, i think his defense is awkward but effective and rate him above Dempsey in that regard.

[Robbi]

Prime Tyson.

[Sonny's jab]

If "slugger" is taken to mean any big-punching guy who is known to knock his opponents out, as Mendoza clarified, then I'd say Sonny Liston.

[Sardu]

I will go with Wladimir Klitschko. He is cautious yet at the same time aggressive. He fought a very measured and intelligent fight against Brewster and I expect he will fight in a similar agressive yet careful style against Ibraginov. Lennox Lewis is also a guy who was excellent at defensive boxing yet would be considered a slugger because of his huge punch.

[heerko koois]

George Foreman .....

[heerko koois]

Prime Tyson.

good call......

[teeto]

Ironmike imo, it is the only real option really to say him , Foreman's defence was terrible , the only argument for him having a good defense is that a good offense mekes a good defense. Tyson imo

[sthomas]

Prime Tyson

Lewis, or he would have been KO'd way more

Wlad, newer Wlad for same reason, that chin scares me

Marciano, underrated in pretty much every catagory, especially defense

[Bummy Davis]

Are we talking defensive slugger or defensive puncher, I think when a fighter is an aggresive slugger his best defence is a good offence but this type of fighting takes great condition and stamina,as well as a solid jaw, as far as defensive punchers think Lennox Lewis did very well, Jersey Joe Walcott and a controlled and unruffled Vlad has done well as of late. Vitali was on point vs Williams,Johnson others but could have en a bit more defensive vs Lewis and Sanders

[janitor]

My pick would be Dempsey.

If you combine the best elements of the defense of Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier and Rocky Marciano you would have something a bit like Dempsey.

[Robbi]

good call......

He was very controlled, defensively aware, and technically sound.

[prime]

Good question and I'm glad to see my original pick of Tyson, along with Dempsey, is favored here.

Let's remember Tyson modeled himself after Dempsey more than any other heavy, probably especially on avoiding the blow and at the same time getting into position to launch a devastating counterattack.

So Dempsey is the master and probably the most perfect example of the aggressive bob-and-weave style, but Tyson, in his aggressive peek-a-boo style, adds the element of his blazing speed, greater than Dempsey's, and thus to me is a hair more effective at capitalizing on mistakes and delivering an out-of-nowhere shocker.

[janitor]

Perhaps Floyd Patterson should be mentioned in this context.