Was Roy Jones a great defensive fighter?

[young griffo]

I've been watching a few of Roy's middle period performances and I must say his ability to avoid a punch was amazing.

Pazienza couldn't land a single punch for a round,Malinga could land just one,Hopkins as good as he is could only manage a poultry 19% connect ratio for an entire fight and from memory,aside from the first Griffin fight,no one else did much better than Hops.

I seriously doubt if any top line fighters absorbed less punishment than Roy at his best.

But now his speed and reflexes have gone and he's now horribly hittable and in light of his embarrassing latter career displays (Tarver 2,Johnson,Green) does this prevent him from being classed as a great defensive fighter?

Or does his prime elusiveness supersede his past-prime frailties to put him up with the all time defensive greats?

[PowerPuncher]

Yes ofcourse, broke technical rules, but his punch slipping, lateral movement, and when he went to the ropes rope a dope, were all excellent, very hard to hit clean. When he lost his legs/reactions his defense was largely gone, but it was at 35

[JudgeDredd]

I think you answered your own question to some degree, he relied heavily on his great reflexes & once he started to slow down he started to get hit & knocked down.

[young griffo]

I think you answered your own question to some degree, he relied heavily on his great reflexes & once he started to slow down he started to get hit & knocked down.
Yeah but at his best he was an amazing defensive fighter,and after his prime he's not.

But overall should he be considered a great defensive fighter or not,is what I'm asking?

[JudgeDredd]

I'd say yes based on the fact he rarely got hit a clean shot, o.k it was all reflexes, but it's still defence

[TommyV]

He was a great defensive fighter in the same mold as Ali. He'd be a nightmare for some trainer's because he does everything you're not supposed to do, he'll leave his hands down, his chin up, he'll drop his hands and lean back from punches. But he had the reactions, reflexes and speed to get away from it, like Ali had the foot speed and the upper body movement.

The only problem is, once that agility and speed went, he hasn't got the chin to back it up. Obviously Ali had a terrific chin and absorbed shots to the body better than probably any heavyweight ever, and that carried him through, I mean for instance in Zaire there's obviously no way he would of survived without great punch resistance.

Jones doesn't have that punch resistance to back him up when his reflexes became shot. Maybe he had a good chin in his prime but it was still untested, especially against punchers, because he was barely ever tagged flush. But now at least, he's susceptible to getting hurt and/or dropped from single punches.

[Sayers]

When talking about the greatest defensive fighters, Mayweather, Locche etc, their defenses are based on a strong skillset. Good technique, upper body and head movement, footwork, blocking and parrying and raising the shoulder. I never really saw that Jones had mastered these kinds of skills, I see him as more like that other great frustrater Whitaker, who relied more on his athletic ability and his reflexes than somebody like Mayweather.

Personally, I wouldnt have Jones in the top tier of defensive fighters but I suppose he could certainly find a place a couple of tiers down. As you say, he shipped a lot of punishment when he got older, a truly great defender woul have picked up some new tricks as his reflexes started to ebb.

[ChrisPontius]

Having a great defence means that you're great at preventing from getting hit. Whether that's due to reflexes or skills is irrelevant. So, yes, Jones was great on the defensive.

Some "purists" will say that he didn't have a great defence because he didn't stay in the pocket, using upper body movement, blocking, etc, to prevent from getting hit. But they mistake technical ability and to a degree, guts, for "defence".

[McGrain]

But they mistake technical ability and to a degree, guts, for "defence".


:blood

[China_hand_Joe]

He also used upper body movement.

[young griffo]

When talking about the greatest defensive fighters, Mayweather, Locche etc, their defenses are based on a strong skillset. Good technique, upper body and head movement, footwork, blocking and parrying and raising the shoulder. I never really saw that Jones had mastered these kinds of skills, I see him as more like that other great frustrater Whitaker, who relied more on his athletic ability and his reflexes than somebody like Mayweather.

Personally, I wouldnt have Jones in the top tier of defensive fighters but I suppose he could certainly find a place a couple of tiers down. As you say, he shipped a lot of punishment when he got older, a truly great defender woul have picked up some new tricks as his reflexes started to ebb.
Good points all but I'd wager Jones at his peak received even less punishment than Floyd (not sure about Niccolino Locche,not seen much of him sadly) and surely that's how you judge a fighters defensive abilities.

And should athletic ability be held against someone,when to take the sport to it's basest level,the name of the game is to hit and not be hit?

Its actually quite confusing as to what makes a great defensive fighter for mine.:huh

[China_hand_Joe]

I think there is only one fighter in history at 160-168 that can break prime Roys defence.

[Sweet Pea]

We judge everyone else on their skill-set during their prime, we should do the same for Jones. During his prime, yes, he was a great defensive fighter on the basis that he simply didn't get hit,

[lefthook31]

He had to be, he was often times the smaller guy in fights. He couldnt afford to get hit. He wasnt a defensive wizard in close like a Mayweather or James Toney who could roll punches and block shots, but he was great on the outside and staying out of his opponents range. I never liked that ear muff defense against the ropes he used because there was always the chance of making a mistake where a punch would get through.

[young griffo]

We judge everyone else on their skill-set during their prime, we should do the same for Jones. During his prime, yes, he was a great defensive fighter on the basis that he simply didn't get hit,
How does he compare with Whitaker defensively in your opinion?

Pernell for all his shit hot talent still got hit clean occasionally (although he was more aggressive than Roy ever was),maybe more so than Jones did though.

[Bokaj]

It's doubtful there's ever been a fighter that was harder to hit in his prime. So, this alone should qualify him as a great defensive fighter.

Was he greater or as great defensive fighter as guys that was hard to hit even when way past their physical primes (Moore, Toney, Hopkins etc)? That one is harder to answer.

[lefthook31]

How does he compare with Whitaker defensively in your opinion?

Pernell for all his shit hot talent still got hit clean occasionally (although he was more aggressive than Roy ever was),maybe more so than Jones did though.
Yeah different style style really. Whitaker did it right in his opponents face which is faaarrr more difficult because your in your opponents punching range.

[PowerPuncher]

When talking about the greatest defensive fighters, Mayweather, Locche etc, their defenses are based on a strong skillset. Good technique, upper body and head movement, footwork, blocking and parrying and raising the shoulder. I never really saw that Jones had mastered these kinds of skills, I see him as more like that other great frustrater Whitaker, who relied more on his athletic ability and his reflexes than somebody like Mayweather.

Personally, I wouldnt have Jones in the top tier of defensive fighters but I suppose he could certainly find a place a couple of tiers down. As you say, he shipped a lot of punishment when he got older, a truly great defender woul have picked up some new tricks as his reflexes started to ebb.

So I assume in a similar way you wouldnt call Foreman a top HW hitter because his technique wasnt quite right ;)

[Stonehands89]

There have been plenty of fighters throughout history who use their natural physical assets to avoid getting it and because of their energy or length they are successful. Hell, go to a gym and watch amateurs imitate Ali and do this. They look good to the untrained eye. Until they get locked in a corner. Then they look simple and hittable. Sometimes these young fighters have a panic attack because they haven't been properly trained to fight in close or maneuver. They are incomplete.

Jones and Ali were hard to hit when they were young because they had uncommon speed and uncommon reflexes. The Klitschkos are not so easy to hit either. Their length and reach make it so -are they "great defensive fighters"?

A great defensive fighter suggests defensive genius, it suggests speed, uncommon reflexes, and great skill that comes with a wealth of experience. The difference between Jones and Ali and true defensive masters like Whitaker or Pep is that the Whitaker and Pep maintained a ridiculous level of evasiveness -in the pocket and past prime. We all saw the holes in Jones and Ali when they slowed down. Jones now gets hurt badly. Ali, a lion heart, absorbed the shots and clinched and bluffed. Had they been true defensive masters, they would still be difficult to catch. Like Duran. He'll be at Canastota, NY in June at the IBHOF. Go there and throw a shot. I bet you'll miss.

The suggestion that fighters who make you miss because they usually linger or step out of range and avoid infighting or leap in and out are at the same level as those fighters more prone to stay in the pocket and make you miss anyway ...is off.

What's harder? You want to measure how technically advanced a fighter is? Watch him inside. It's harder there.

[China_hand_Joe]

There have been plenty of fighters throughout history who use their natural physical assets to avoid getting it and because of their energy or length they are successful. Hell, go to a gym and watch amateurs imitate Ali and do this. They look good to the untrained eye. Until they get locked in a corner. Then they look simple and hittable. Sometimes these young fighters have a panic attack because they haven't been properly trained to fight in close or maneuver. They are incomplete.

Jones and Ali were hard to hit when they were young because they had uncommon speed and uncommon reflexes. The Klitschkos are not so easy to hit either. Their length and reach make it so -are they "great defensive fighters"?

A great defensive fighter suggests defensive genius, it suggests speed, uncommon reflexes, and great skill that comes with a wealth of experience. The difference between Jones and Ali and true defensive masters like Whitaker or Pep is that the Whitaker and Pep maintained a ridiculous level of evasiveness -in the pocket and past prime. We all saw the holes in Jones and Ali when they slowed down. Jones now gets hurt badly. Ali, a lion heart, absorbed the shots and clinched and bluffed. Had they been true defensive masters, they would still be difficult to catch. Like Duran. He'll be at Canastota, NY in June at the IBHOF. Go there and throw a shot. I bet you'll miss.

The suggestion that fighters who make you miss because they usually linger or step out of range and avoid infighting or leap in and out are at the same level as those fighters more prone to stay in the pocket and make you miss anyway ...is off.

What's harder? You want to measure how technically advanced a fighter is? Watch him inside. It's harder there.


Andre Ward is something special and a future ATG.

[ChrisPontius]

:blood

:?

[lefthook31]

:?
I got your point, and I agree. Depends on how you want to look at it. The long explanation above would be the purist perspective.

[Bokaj]

There have been plenty of fighters throughout history who use their natural physical assets to avoid getting it and because of their energy or length they are successful. Hell, go to a gym and watch amateurs imitate Ali and do this. They look good to the untrained eye. Until they get locked in a corner. Then they look simple and hittable. Sometimes these young fighters have a panic attack because they haven't been properly trained to fight in close or maneuver. They are incomplete.

Jones and Ali were hard to hit when they were young because they had uncommon speed and uncommon reflexes. The Klitschkos are not so easy to hit either. Their length and reach make it so -are they "great defensive fighters"?

A great defensive fighter suggests defensive genius, it suggests speed, uncommon reflexes, and great skill that comes with a wealth of experience. The difference between Jones and Ali and true defensive masters like Whitaker or Pep is that the Whitaker and Pep maintained a ridiculous level of evasiveness -in the pocket and past prime. We all saw the holes in Jones and Ali when they slowed down. Jones now gets hurt badly. Ali, a lion heart, absorbed the shots and clinched and bluffed. Had they been true defensive masters, they would still be difficult to catch. Like Duran. He'll be at Canastota, NY in June at the IBHOF. Go there and throw a shot. I bet you'll miss.

The suggestion that fighters who make you miss because they usually linger or step out of range and avoid infighting or leap in and out are at the same level as those fighters more prone to stay in the pocket and make you miss anyway ...is off.

What's harder? You want to measure how technically advanced a fighter is? Watch him inside. It's harder there.

You have a point. But Duran was definitely hittable as he grew older, too. Great as his perfomance against Barkley was, he had no business standing up to some of the shots he was taking. And Benitez and Hearns didn't have much trouble finding a Duran with faded reflexes.

And this will probably not surprise anyone, but I think the comparison between Ali and Jones is made a bit too flippantly. Yes, both were unorthodox fighters who relied heavily on close to superhuman athletecism in their prime, but Ali adapted much better and this was not only down to harder chin.

Against Foreman, for example, Ali managed to nullify almost everything Foreman threw. Now and then Foreman got through and Ali had to ride it out, but the same is true of a prime Young who fought a somewhat faded version of Big George. As I have pointed out earlier, I also think Ali fought better from a technical standpoint in Manilla than in FOTC. He had faded physically, but improved technically and tactically.

[young griffo]

There have been plenty of fighters throughout history who use their natural physical assets to avoid getting it and because of their energy or length they are successful. Hell, go to a gym and watch amateurs imitate Ali and do this. They look good to the untrained eye. Until they get locked in a corner. Then they look simple and hittable. Sometimes these young fighters have a panic attack because they haven't been properly trained to fight in close or maneuver. They are incomplete.

Jones and Ali were hard to hit when they were young because they had uncommon speed and uncommon reflexes. The Klitschkos are not so easy to hit either. Their length and reach make it so -are they "great defensive fighters"?

A great defensive fighter suggests defensive genius, it suggests speed, uncommon reflexes, and great skill that comes with a wealth of experience. The difference between Jones and Ali and true defensive masters like Whitaker or Pep is that the Whitaker and Pep maintained a ridiculous level of evasiveness -in the pocket and past prime. We all saw the holes in Jones and Ali when they slowed down. Jones now gets hurt badly. Ali, a lion heart, absorbed the shots and clinched and bluffed. Had they been true defensive masters, they would still be difficult to catch. Like Duran. He'll be at Canastota, NY in June at the IBHOF. Go there and throw a shot. I bet you'll miss.

The suggestion that fighters who make you miss because they usually linger or step out of range and avoid infighting or leap in and out are at the same level as those fighters more prone to stay in the pocket and make you miss anyway ...is off.

What's harder? You want to measure how technically advanced a fighter is? Watch him inside. It's harder there.
All very true but do you think you have to do it on the inside to be a defensive great?

I remember reading an article by Jose Torres where he talked about the gifts of prime Ali and how he compared his defensive prowess with the likes of Pep.Torres felt that although Ali did an awful amount wrong he still probably got hit less than Pep (I think it was wrote in the 60's) yet he muddied the waters further by attributing Ali's prowess to a natural genius,and not the boxing science you speak of.

Do you have to be able to compete on the inside to be a defensive great because Ali as good as he was couldn't?

Yet he still has to rank as a great defensive fighter purely because his legs and reflexes stopped him from getting hit and unlike the Klitschko's he didn't have the size differential they've got to cover for their flaws.

[lefthook31]

All very true but do you think you have to do it on the inside to be a defensive great?

I remember reading an article by Jose Torres where he talked about the gifts of prime Ali and how he compared his defensive prowess with the likes of Pep.Torres felt that although Ali did an awful amount wrong he still probably got hit less than Pep (I think it was wrote in the 60's) yet he muddied the waters further by attributing Ali's prowess to a natural genius,and not the boxing science you speak of.

Do you have to be able to compete on the inside to be a defensive great because Ali as good as he was couldn't?

Yet he still has to rank as a great defensive fighter purely because his legs and reflexes stopped him from getting hit and unlike the Klitschko's he didn't have the size differential they've got to cover for their flaws.
Yeah just depends on how you define defense I guess. I agree with you it should be evaluated both ways outside inside, just overall not getting hit, of course in close defense is a little more impressive in my book because your doing it in range.
Speaking of Torres, Mike Tyson had some incredible defense at his best, and probably the hardest defense to master because he was coming forward and slipping shots.

[young griffo]

Yeah just depends on how you define defense I guess. I agree with you it should be evaluated both ways outside inside, just overall not getting hit, of course in close defense is a little more impressive in my book because your doing it in range.
Speaking of Torres, Mike Tyson had some incredible defense at his best, and probably the hardest defense to master because he was coming forward and slipping shots.
Tysons head speed (that's gotta be a new term) was amazing early on,especially as he used it to get inside and set up his lethal body-head attack.

It helped him defensively that early on Tyson's opponents basically were shitting themselves at this short,square pitbull-like beast bearing in on them and were purely punching whilst going backwards.

[Stonehands89]

You have a point. But Duran was definitely hittable as he grew older, too. Great as his perfomance against Barkley was, he had no business standing up to some of the shots he was taking. And Benitez and Hearns didn't have much trouble finding a Duran with faded reflexes.
Of course an aging fighter, irregardless of how technically skilled is going to be hit more. Conditioning also factors in. Barkley was missing multiple shots in a row throughout the fight though, and that should not be overlooked.

And this will probably not surprise anyone, but I think the comparison between Ali and Jones is made a bit too flippantly.
...flippantly?

Yes, both were unorthodox fighters who relied heavily on close to superhuman athletecism in their prime, but Ali adapted much better and this was not only down to harder chin.
* The MAJOR reason an aging Ali was able to survive those punchers despite the holes in his technique was because of his harder chin.

* Jones had at least as an impressive array of athletic powers. Let's not forget the kind of power that made Ruiz's eyes to loopty-loops.

Against Foreman, for example, Ali managed to nullify almost everything Foreman threw. Now and then Foreman got through and Ali had to ride it out, but the same is true of a prime Young who fought a somewhat faded version of Big George. As I have pointed out earlier, I also think Ali fought better from a technical standpoint in Manilla than in FOTC. He had faded physically, but improved technically and tactically.
I'd say that he did not improve "technically" -you usually do not when you are in your mid-30's. What happened was he was able to adapt to a now-familiar style in Frazier. Ali could be counted on to do this which is why I wouldn't bet on anyone beating him twice in those head-to-heads. But that's not technical advancement. It's strategy.

[Stonehands89]

All very true but do you think you have to do it on the inside to be a defensive great?

I remember reading an article by Jose Torres where he talked about the gifts of prime Ali and how he compared his defensive prowess with the likes of Pep.Torres felt that although Ali did an awful amount wrong he still probably got hit less than Pep (I think it was wrote in the 60's) yet he muddied the waters further by attributing Ali's prowess to a natural genius,and not the boxing science you speak of.

Do you have to be able to compete on the inside to be a defensive great because Ali as good as he was couldn't?

Yet he still has to rank as a great defensive fighter purely because his legs and reflexes stopped him from getting hit and unlike the Klitschko's he didn't have the size differential they've got to cover for their flaws.
Torres' statement about Ali's allegedly getting hit less in his prime than Pep fails to consider several variables. These include Pep's fighting in the pocket where you have to consider fists, elbows, and the head. Again, it's easier to avoid punches when you are on or outside the perimeter. You can see them easier. He also doesn't consider Pep's frequency of fighting which reduces Ali's to novice-levels; and he doesn't remember the fact that Pep was fighting men who were far faster than anything Ali ever faced --in terms of speed, Ali had it easy compared to featherweights.

I believe that Ali was great defensively, very effective defensively, and a supreme athlete, but I see a difference between acknowledging that and calling Ali a defensive master, or a defensive genius, or a highly skilled defensive technician.

[McGrain]

:?


Well, you seem to be saying correct balance, slick blocking, riding/rolling, controlling space and preventing your opponent doing all of these things is a matter of courage rather than technique?

[Bokaj]

Of course an aging fighter, irregardless of how technically skilled is going to be hit more. Conditioning also factors in. Barkley was missing multiple shots in a row throughout the fight though, and that should not be overlooked.

True. But I think you can make the same allowances for Ali against Shavers. Shavers tagged Ali brutally hard a number of times and only Ali's chin and will kept him standing then, but it wasn't like he was hitting him at will. Far from it. He missed a lot as well.

It should be said, of course, that Ali wasn't as technically skilled as Duran. Just to avoid misunderstandings.


* The MAJOR reason an aging Ali was able to survive those punchers despite the holes in his technique was because of his harder chin.

Here I disagree. The main reason Ali survived against Foreman is that he made him miss a horribly lot. More than even Young did.

But of course Foreman got through now and then. He managed to tag just about everyone he met at least once ot twice, and they all needed good chins to survive those occassions. Same with Shavers.

A prime Young, who's considered a very technically adept defensive fighter for a HW, was caught more cleanly by a faded Foreman than Ali ever was, but was durable enough to survive. Even Holyfield had to tough it out a couple of times against an ancient Foreman.

Ali was of course hit more frequently when he got older, but he didn't receive a really sustained beating until he met Holmes.

I'd say that he did not improve "technically" -you usually do not when you are in your mid-30's. What happened was he was able to adapt to a now-familiar style in Frazier. Ali could be counted on to do this which is why I wouldn't bet on anyone beating him twice in those head-to-heads. But that's not technical advancement. It's strategy.

It was a couple of things he did better from a technical standpoint. He was more discplined in keeping his right hand up and he leaned in against Frazier when against the ropes instead of leaning back and giving Frazier punching room. He also showed good in-fighting on several occassions, which he just about never had done before.

In FOTC he fought like he still had the legs he had in the 60's and paid dearly for it. After that defeat he became more disciplined technically in several regards and wasn't as vulnerable to the left hook anymore.

[Mantequilla]

Jones was excellent defensively in his prime, as far as sheer effectiveness is concerned, though i think a lot of it also had to do with the fact his offense and speed were so good.

Not many fighters were able to try and lay a lot of leather on Jones, and he often fought with a cautious pure boxer\cutie mindset despite being a viscious puncher, which i think was key to him being such a tough puzzle to solve.Jnes was a much more intelligent ring-general than he often gets credit for imo.

[McGrain]

Not many fighters were able to try and lay a lot of leather on Jones, and he often fought with a cautious pure boxer\cutie mindset despite being a viscious puncher, which i think was key to him being such a tough puzzle to solve.


Lewis had a dose of this aswell, although he was a very different kind of fighter.

Puncher with a boxer's mentality.

[lefthook31]

I dont know about that. I saw Ali take some tremendous punishment from Foreman languishing on the ropes.

[Bokaj]

What say you of Jones' footwork? How technically adept was or wasn't it in your opinion?

[lefthook31]

His footwork was excellent. Thats one of the biggest parts of being able to avoid punches with a style like Jones. Getting in and out, side to side keeping the fight at range.

[McGrain]

What say you of Jones' footwork? How technically adept was or wasn't it in your opinion?


Technically adept? Very hard question to answer. It was certainly very affective and he could get set without getting set. Rare gift, that. What's interesting is that in a discussion about footwork, Jones rarely pops up. I think he bamboozles a lot of people, and if it confuses those of use with HD slow-mo replays available, I think that tells you all you need to know about facing a fighter with such ability. The Kelly KO is downright spooky.

What I will say is that his footwork going away is pretty much as taught, much of the time.

[Bokaj]

I dont know about that. I saw Ali take some tremendous punishment from Foreman languishing on the ropes.

Sure, anyone staying stationary against the ropes like that in front of a fighter who doesn't seem to care about getting hit himself is going to ship some punches.

But there weren't that many clean ones. I'd say that Ali outscored him with clean punches in just about every round. Of course, the ones he landed on Ali's arms, kidneys and back of the head couldn't have been very nice either, but he did a very good job of protecting the most vulnerable areas. In rd 3 Foreman landed one flush on the chin, but Ali manged to survive that one largely because he saw it coming and rode with it.

When it comes to Ali's technique I think his balance is to often overlooked. Due to very good footwork he was just about always in balance, even when old, and that meant he was in a good position to ride punches through.

Look at what happened when he got caught against Cooper with his feet poorly placed. He almost got KO'd. But that's the only time I can remember that he was caught napping like that.

[lefthook31]

Lewis had a dose of this aswell, although he was a very different kind of fighter.

Puncher with a boxer's mentality.
Maybe because of their chinny chin chins. I think Lewis always wanted to be banger but learned early on his chin wouldnt stand for it.
Jones on the other hand was the smaller guy looking up.

[McGrain]

Sure, anyone staying stationary against the ropes like that in front of a fighter who doesn't seem to care about getting hit himself is going to ship some punches.

But there weren't that many clean ones. I'd say that Ali outscored him with clean punches in just about every round.


I agree.

[McGrain]

Maybe because of their chinny chin chins. I think Lewis always wanted to be banger but learned early on his chin wouldnt stand for it.
Jones on the other hand was the smaller guy looking up.

Could be. Although I disagree that Lewis wanted to be a banger, I think he was happy staying out of the way where possible.

[lefthook31]

Sure, anyone staying stationary against the ropes like that in front of a fighter who doesn't seem to care about getting hit himself is going to ship some punches.

But there weren't that many clean ones. I'd say that Ali outscored him with clean punches in just about every round. Of course, the ones he landed on Ali's arms, kidneys and back of the head couldn't have been very nice either, but he did a very good job of protecting the most vulnerable areas. In rd 3 Foreman landed one flush on the chin, but Ali manged to survive that one largely because he saw it coming and rode with it.

When it comes to Ali's technique I think his balance is to often overlooked. Due to very good footwork he was just about always in balance, even when old, and that meant he was in a good position to ride punches through.

Look at what happened when he got caught against Cooper with his feet poorly placed. He almost got KO'd. But that's the only time I can remember that he was caught napping like that.
These kind of fighters just become easier to find once they slow down. I think Ali obviously morphed into a much better stationary fighter than Jones ever did once he slowed thats for sure, but I cant imagine the young quick of feet Ali ever fighting Foreman like he did.

[Bokaj]

These kind of fighters just become easier to find once they slow down. I think Ali obviously morphed into a much better stationary fighter than Jones ever did once he slowed thats for sure, but I cant imagine the young quick of feet Ali ever fighting Foreman like he did.

Agreed. Groove actually posted an interview with Ali today, where Ali says that the '64 version never would have let himself be found by Foreman.

[lefthook31]

Could be. Although I disagree that Lewis wanted to be a banger, I think he was happy staying out of the way where possible.
Even in his early days?? He loved to load up with that big telegraphing righthand and put it on guys.
I think thats where Emanuel Steward made the change and showed Lewis, see you can set it up from the outside off your jab stay on balance and keep yourself out of harms way.

[McGrain]

Even in his early days?? He loved to load up with that big telegraphing righthand and put it on guys.


Yeah, even in the early days. Lewis was never a blood n guts type of fighter. The reason Bruno-Lewis was so fascinating was that the boxer turned puncher and the puncher turned boxer.

[Sweet Pea]

What say you of Jones' footwork? How technically adept was or wasn't it in your opinion?
Excellent. His feet didn't move as much as you would think based on how quickly he closed and opened up the distance. He just always had them planted in the correct position, a bit of a wider stance that attributed to his godly handspeed and reflexes.

[TheExecutioner]

Definitely one of the best defensive fighters and had the best reflexes i have ever possibly seen in a boxer,he is up there with the Whitaker and Floyd because of his reflexes which meant he hardly got hit.

[Stonehands89]

True. But I think you can make the same allowances for Ali against Shavers. Shavers tagged Ali brutally hard a number of times and only Ali's chin and will kept him standing then, but it wasn't like he was hitting him at will. Far from it. He missed a lot as well.
Shavers wasn't missing because Ali was anything near a defensive technician, Bokaj. Ali was clinching all over the joint. That takes some level of skill, but it is not as impressive as making a man miss by an inch as you slide inside and counter at the same time time.

Here I disagree. The main reason Ali survived against Foreman is that he made him miss a horribly lot. More than even Young did.
Ali took it to the body like no one else. He was also leaning back on the ropes and holding him.

If you are impressed with Ali's technical wizardry in Zaire, then we are on different planets. Technically, Ali was not impressive in Zaire. Tactically he sure was, but let's call it what it is.

It was a great victory, but it was not a Pep-like display by any stretch of the imagination.

But of course Foreman got through now and then. He managed to tag just about everyone he met at least once ot twice, and they all needed good chins to survive those occassions. Same with Shavers.
I'd also consider Ali's ability to take it downstairs as a key to that victory.

A prime Young, who's considered a very technically adept defensive fighter for a HW, was caught more cleanly by a faded Foreman than Ali ever was, but was durable enough to survive. Even Holyfield had to tough it out a couple of times against an ancient Foreman.

Ali was of course hit more frequently when he got older, but he didn't receive a really sustained beating until he met Holmes.
Frazier gave him a real beating as early as '71.

It was a couple of things he did better from a technical standpoint. He was more discplined in keeping his right hand up and he leaned in against Frazier when against the ropes instead of leaning back and giving Frazier punching room. He also showed good in-fighting on several occassions, which he just about never had done before.

In FOTC he fought like he still had the legs he had in the 60's and paid dearly for it. After that defeat he became more disciplined technically in several regards and wasn't as vulnerable to the left hook anymore.
Eh. He "kept his right up" and "leaned on Frazier"...? I have a higher standard than you do in terms of what constitutes a defensive technician.

[KTFO]

1. RJJ
2. SRR
3. Willie Pep
4. Sweet Pee
5. PBF

[GPater11093]

I agree.

You have obviously never seen Niccolino Locche, he is breathtaking to watch on the ropes.

There are three main types of defence: head movement, foot movement and hand movement. All three are equally important in the defensive aspect of boxing, but for me to be described as a true defensive wizard you need to have technically mastered at least two of these skills to the highest standard. Willie Pep had breathtaking head and foot movement, whereas Wilfred Benitez utilised all three, and again Niccolino Locche preferred head and hand movement.

However, Roy Jones Jr and Muhammed Ali were nearly as hard to hit as these master’s but I would not name them among the defensive geniuses of Boxing. These men had physical skills in abundance, the type of physicality’s us mortals can only imagine having. They were quick, had great reflexes and were superb judges of timing and distance. There physical skills fell into the realms of foot and head movement as they slipped, stepped and circled away from punches, but they had not mastered these skills technically they made ‘technical’ mistakes, for example Ali pulled back straight from a punch and Jones had quite a wide stance. They had good defence but definitely not great. They could not counter-punch as skilfully as Willie Pep or Niccolino Locche nor could they get out of a corner as skilfully as Wilfredo Benitez.


Now take someone like Hilario Zapata a great all-round defensive fighter. He utilised all three aspects of defence and was technically sound. He was much harder to hit than Ali or Jones despite not having the same physical gifts, he definitely had great timing, reflexes etc... Just not to the high levels of Jones and Ali. Zapata however was more technically solid, in a defensive standpoint; he was much more versatile and could make a man miss in many ways and then come back in a variety of ways. His makes him to me a defensive wizard.

Just out of interest my top defensive boxers are



Niccolino Locche
Willie Pep
Miguel Canto
Hilario Zapata
Wilfredo Benitez

[robert ungurean]

No. He was blessed with some of the best reflexes ever. That was his defense.So technicaly no.

[KTFO]

No. He was blessed with some of the best reflexes ever. That was his defense.So technicaly no.


Regarding this logical point any boxer could be p4p best defensive fighter cause even retards can hide behind a guard shell.

[ChrisPontius]

Well, you seem to be saying correct balance, slick blocking, riding/rolling, controlling space and preventing your opponent doing all of these things is a matter of courage rather than technique?

No - you didn't place that sentence in the proper context.

Those are a matter of great technique, and to a degree courage (since they could've also stayed safe on the outside). It makes a great defensive fighter. But the reverse need not be true: a great defensive fighter doesn't have to do Toney-esque stuff on the inside.

[Sweet Pea]

1. RJJ
2. SRR
3. Willie Pep
4. Sweet Pee
5. PBFYou're probably the only person who'd consider Robinson one of the best defensive fighters ever. He showed very good defense when he wanted, don't get me wrong, but his offense was his defense most of the time.

[McGrain]

No - you didn't place that sentence in the proper context.

Those are a matter of great technique, and to a degree courage (since they could've also stayed safe on the outside). It makes a great defensive fighter. But the reverse need not be true: a great defensive fighter doesn't have to do Toney-esque stuff on the inside.


Is it safe on the outside? I guess that's fair to say dependant upon on your style and the opponent. I agree with the final sentence you wrote. I think there is some confusion on the board between "technically excellent" and "technically complete" and "technician". Your fighter can be the first without being the second and third in this "doesn't have to do Toney-esque stuff on the inside".

[KTFO]

You're probably the only person who'd consider Robinson one of the best defensive fighters ever. He showed very good defense when he wanted, don't get me wrong, but his defense was his offense most of the time.


Ok let's deny footwork and head-movement here.

[McGrain]

Ok let's deny footwork and head-movement here.


Yeah, let's, let's do that, completely.

[Sweet Pea]

I think Zapata had some pretty awesome physical gifts, actually Pater. I don't think anyone was "much harder to hit" than a prime Roy Jones, either. Whether you think he had great technical skills or not, there are very few fighters you can name that were hit less often than Jones.

[lefthook31]

Is it safe on the outside? I guess that's fair to say dependant upon on your style and the opponent. I agree with the final sentence you wrote. I think there is some confusion on the board between "technically excellent" and "technically complete" and "technician". Your fighter can be the first without being the second and third in this "doesn't have to do Toney-esque stuff on the inside".
Not its not always safe on the outside. Can you imagine Toney being as great defensively and countering like Jones could operating from the outside? Hell no.

[Sweet Pea]

Ok let's deny footwork and head-movement here.He had magnificent footwork, but footwork in itself doesn't necessarily constitute great defense. He was too offensive minded to be a great defensive fighter, and lacked the head movement and anticipation of punches that someone like Duran had. Again, he did everything well, but his defense fell short of great IMO. I actually don't think his head movement was particularly standout.

[lefthook31]

Look Roy Jones had to be good defensively by position. A fighter that operates from the outside and falls in with counter shots and power leads has to end up in a position where he can either slip or not be hit. Jones did a lot of that. If thats not part of defense I dont know what is. If you want to classify defense as standing in front of your opponent and making them miss that wouldnt be the full spectrum of defense either.

[Frazier Hook]

We judge everyone else on their skill-set during their prime, we should do the same for Jones. During his prime, yes, he was a great defensive fighter on the basis that he simply didn't get hit,

Coundt have said it better!

[KTFO]

Yeah, let's, let's do that, completely.


Is it nuthugging-time again? Get off my dick and grow up finally.

[McGrain]

Is it nuthugging-time again? Get off my dick and grow up finally.


I have no idea what you are saying.

[KTFO]

I have no idea what you are saying.


Stalker.

[KTFO]

He was too offensive minded to be a great defensive fighter, and lacked the head movement and anticipation of punches that someone like Duran had.



After that sentence I stopped reading your post. I assume you're celebrating and boozed/wasted already. Have a nice party. :hi:

[Axl_Nose]

Roy Jones was never a great defensive fighter .. Simply because he never had to be, no fghter had the skill to put him under any pressure defensively .. We are talking about 'orthodox defensive abililty here', Roy Jones's whole skill set was based on reflexes, on this count he was one of the greatest fighters of all time, his punch picking and speed were also amoung the greatest of all time .. This cannot be called into question .. In his 90s prime he was as dominant as anyone in history, he hardly lost a round .... When he got older and his reflexes slowed, it exposed him to shots he wouldnt ordinarely worry about which was why he got knocked out .. He was such an offensively minded fighter because of his reflexes that he never needed to worry about what was coming back, he could see the shots a milisecond after his opponent threw it ....

If Jones retired after the Ruiz fight he'd be held in the highest esteem, but because he carried on and let the ageing process weather him, there are question marks for some people ..

For me Roy Jones, along with Pernell Whitaker and Floyd are the greatest fighters since Ray Leonard and are all time greats that live with the big guns of history, but Roy like Pernell like Floyd have their doubters, doubters who always seem to prefer 'hard working' fighters like Pacquiao, Tzsyu, Chavez etc .. But that comes down to fight styles and what an individual prefers ......

[lefthook31]

Roy Jones was never a great defensive fighter .. Simply because he never had to be, no fghter had the skill to put him under any pressure defensively .. We are talking about 'orthodox defensive abililty here', Roy Jones's whole skill set was based on reflexes, on this count he was one of the greatest fighters of all time, his punch picking and speed were also amoung the greatest of all time .. This cannot be called into question .. In his 90s prime he was as dominant as anyone in history, he hardly lost a round .... When he got older and his reflexes slowed, it exposed him to shots he wouldnt ordinarely worry about which was why he got knocked out .. He was such an offensively minded fighter because of his reflexes that he never needed to worry about what was coming back, he could see the shots a milisecond after his opponent threw it ....

If Jones retired after the Ruiz fight he'd be held in the highest esteem, but because he carried on and let the ageing process weather him, there are question marks for some people ..

For me Roy Jones, along with Pernell Whitaker and Floyd are the greatest fighters since Ray Leonard and are all time greats that live with the big guns of history, but Roy like Pernell like Floyd have their doubters, doubters who always seem to prefer 'hard working' fighters like Pacquiao, Tzsyu, Chavez etc .. But that comes down to fight styles and what an individual prefers ......

Your missing the whole spectrum of defense. Didnt guys like Whitaker also start to get hit with shots they didnt oridinarily get hit with when they got older and their reflexes started to slow?
Putting yourself in a position to not get hit is also part of defense, its not just ducking or blocking. As I said in a previous post, Jones led with power shots and counter shots. His ability to wind up in a spot where he could avoid counterpunches or punches from his opponent, is certainly a part of defense.

[Axl_Nose]

Your missing the whole spectrum of defense. Didnt guys like Whitaker also start to get hit with shots they didnt oridinarily get hit with when they got older and their reflexes started to slow?
Putting yourself in a position to not get hit is also part of defense, its not just ducking or blocking. As I said in a previous post, Jones led with power shots and counter shots. His ability to wind up in a spot where he could avoid counterpunches or punches from his opponent, is certainly a part of defense.

I'd agree with you fully .. But you cant classify Jones in his prime as in any way a defensive fighter, it was very hard to distinguish what was 'defensive' with Jones as when he backed off it was usually to start an attacking move .. The only thing you can judge on Jones, is that when his reflexes slowed, he didnt have a clue on what to do defensively, he took shots that average guys wouldnt take, just because he had never had to be in positions to take these shots .... You cannot pigeon hole Jones as a great defensive fighter because usually great defensive fighters are like Hopkins, but Hopkins doesnt have an offence until hes done damage from right hand defensive counters ..... Roy Jones is one of the greatest, most fluid fighters of all time, but i wouldnt call him 'A great defensive fighter', i'd call Pernell Whitaker a 'Great Defensive Fighter' like Floyd, but not Jones, Jones was way more than this ....

[GPater11093]

I think Zapata had some pretty awesome physical gifts, actually Pater. I don't think anyone was "much harder to hit" than a prime Roy Jones, either. Whether you think he had great technical skills or not, there are very few fighters you can name that were hit less often than Jones.

Yeh he did have some awesome gifts but I was underplaying them abit to focus on his technical skills, bad example really. I dont he was much harder to hit than Jones Jr but i think his defence was more varied and he could slip inside and move at long range etc... I honestly beleive Zapata to be the best technically defensive genius

[Axl_Nose]

great defenses fighter. i ever saw anyone slip punches the way roy did

Based on reflexes though, not on great defensive ability like Pernell or Floyd .... Roy Jones was an attacking fighter, his whole gameplan was based on an offensive arsenal backed up by great reflexes, he never had to think of defence like other fighters had to .. I'd also add that Jones had great positional sense, it was very rare that he'd be caught out of position in his prime

[lefthook31]

Based on reflexes though, not on great defensive ability like Pernell or Floyd .... Roy Jones was an attacking fighter, his whole gameplan was based on an offensive arsenal backed up by great reflexes, he never had to think of defence like other fighters had to .. I'd also add that Jones had great positional sense, it was very rare that he'd be caught out of position in his prime
Yes but thats still a part of defense that went away as he got older. Tyson was an attacking fighter too, but he had a tremendous ability to slip punches by moving his head and upper body while attacking. That also went away when he started to slip.
Defense was just a bigger part of the fighters games of a Pernell or Floyd, probably why they are and were not as exciting.

[Bokaj]

Shavers wasn't missing because Ali was anything near a defensive technician, Bokaj. Ali was clinching all over the joint. That takes some level of skill, but it is not as impressive as making a man miss by an inch as you slide inside and counter at the same time time.

Yeah, he was clinching, but he also slipped shots. Look at rd 15. But "making a man miss by an inch and slide inside and counter" is more or less unknown amongst HWs long past theor prime. Give me one example.

Ali took it to the body like no one else. He was also leaning back on the ropes and holding him.

If you are impressed with Ali's technical wizardry in Zaire, then we are on different planets. Technically, Ali was not impressive in Zaire. Tactically he sure was, but let's call it what it is.

It was a great victory, but it was not a Pep-like display by any stretch of the imagination..

It doesn't have to Pep-like too be great technically. Ali had his back to the ropes, made Foreman miss all over the place and countered effectively. That isn't text book, but it takes great skill. Otherwise everyone would do it. No one else has.

Yes, he took some body blows, but almost all of them was away from the crucial areas because he just blocked too well.

I'd also consider Ali's ability to take it downstairs as a key to that victory.

Sure. But you don't beat a prime Foreman if you can't take a punch. Sooner or later he's gonna land on you no matter what.

Eh. He "kept his right up" and "leaned on Frazier"...? I have a higher standard than you do in terms of what constitutes a defensive technician.

I said "leaned in". Big difference. Not holding - in-fighting technique. But, yes, these are pretty basic techniques, but I mentioned them in reference to how he improved. These were basic techniques that he shunned before FOTC.

[GregDempsey]

even in his prime though you could see the traces of some bad habits that one just knew he would get caught from..putting his back flat on the ropes and just hand cuffing his hands to his face..he had great reflexes which made him hard to hit..and also his offense helped him..in many ways his best defense really was his offense..having said that, i think he had some flaws, that did hurt him at times even in his prime, the first montel griffin fight being a example.

[Bokaj]

I have a higher standard than you do in terms of what constitutes a defensive technician.


Whatch from 4:00 in this clip when Ali is going for the KO. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

He is staying in the pocket more or less the whole round, and except for the low hands I think he looks very good from a technical standpoint. For me this strenghten my belief that Ali had skills that he rarely used because he was a safety first fighter (mostlly), but he had them none the less.

[Stonehands89]

Yeah, he was clinching, but he also slipped shots. Look at rd 15. But "making a man miss by an inch and slide inside and counter" is more or less unknown amongst HWs long past theor prime. Give me one example.
I'll give you two. Joe Louis in the Marciano bout and Evander Holyfield against Valuev.

It doesn't have to Pep-like too be great technically. Ali had his back to the ropes, made Foreman miss all over the place and countered effectively. That isn't text book, but it takes great skill. Otherwise everyone would do it. No one else has.
I do not consider Ali to have great skill. By great skill I mean that he was not a technician like McCallum or Arguello or even Ray Leonard was.

It is commonplace now for boxing figures to confuse skill with athleticism and skill with strategy. There's a difference -particularly between the former. The latter is tougher to pick up on but there is a difference.

Ali a technician? This will always be an oxymoron in my book at least.

Yes, he took some body blows, but almost all of them was away from the crucial areas because he just blocked too well.
Ali more or less gave Foreman the body. He held his hands high to protect his head.

Sure. But you don't beat a prime Foreman if you can't take a punch. Sooner or later he's gonna land on you no matter what.
Ali had a great chin, no one disputes that. Shots bounced off of him throughout the 70s that would not have been so numerous had he had a good command of the fundamentals. He did not.

This is not insulting Ali. In a way, it actually enhances his legacy... becuase he did not have to develop great textbook skills to dominate like he did.

I said "leaned in". Big difference. Not holding - in-fighting technique. But, yes, these are pretty basic techniques, but I mentioned them in reference to how he improved. These were basic techniques that he shunned before FOTC.
So, leaning in as opposed to leaning out signifies improvement. Okay. That's fine. But this only helps my thesis which states that Ali was not a technician.

[leverage]

Not in the true sense. His speed and reflexes are what enabled him to avoid punches, not skills like blocking and parrying. When he began slowing down 6 or 7 years ago he began to get hit with punches that he would have avoided in his prime.

[Stonehands89]

Whatch from 4:00 in this clip when Ali is going for the KO. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

He is staying in the pocket more or less the whole round, and except for the low hands I think he looks very good from a technical standpoint. For me this strenghten my belief that Ali had skills that he rarely used because he was a safety first fighter (mostlly), but he had them none the less.
Ali was a technician in disguise? I've heard Senya say the same thing about Jones. The problem is that it isn't true. Ali and to a lesser extent Jones were savants. They made a career out of ignoring the text book and developed their own style that was less reliant on fundamentals and more reliant on natural athleticism. Dundee himself will tell you that he wasn't insisting that Ali learn how to throw uppercuts properly or fight inside. He let Ali develop naturally. They weren't fine-tuning his fundamentals in training just to fight in the Ali style when it mattered. Fundamentals are honed over years and years of drills, application in sparring, and under the lights.

As per the video: Ali threw not one body punch. Not one! He was relying on coming over Bugner's jab with a right and now and then threw a left hook or flurried with uppercuts that should have been countered by Bugner. His jab was always special but Ali relied on the jab, the right, and a hook that was usually slapping the opponent's head into range of his right. He didn't have much more in his offensive arsenal.

Defense? He's pulling back and turning away from shots and holding.

I repeat... Ali is not a technician -offensively or defensively.

Harold Johnson was. In this clip, he is almost mirroring what Ali is doing -but he is doing it with better balance, a tighter formation, and could have taught Ali an awful lot about leverage.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[ripcity]

When we talk avout the great defensive boxers his name dose not come up but maby it should. In his prime he rarely got touched and isn't that why we conseder Pep, Whitaker, Benitez, B. Leonard and Loche geat defensive boxers?

[Bokaj]

Ali was a technician in disguise? I've heard Senya say the same thing about Jones. The problem is that it isn't true. Ali and to a lesser extent Jones were savants. They made a career out of ignoring the text book and developed their own style that was less reliant on fundamentals and more reliant on natural athleticism. Dundee himself will tell you that he wasn't insisting that Ali learn how to throw uppercuts properly or fight inside. He let Ali develop naturally. They weren't fine-tuning his fundamentals in training just to fight in the Ali style when it mattered. Fundamentals are honed over years and years of drills, application in sparring, and under the lights.

I've never claimed Ali is a technician in a text book sense. As you say, he developed his own technique to a large degree, but it is still technique. That's really where you and I differ. You see anything not text book as pure athleticism, which I don't. Take any NBA player, or what have you, with fantastic athletic ability and they still won't pull out the moves of a prime Jones or Ali. Not without a lot of practice.

Also, I think Ali had a bigger repertoire than he usually let on. You can see that in sparring clips from the mid 60's for example, but a notable example in an actual fight is when he fights Frazier on the inside in Manilla.

But to be clear: Ali had technical flaws. I'm not claiming anything different. I just think you tend to view it a bit black and white.

And I also think this about him taking bad beatings in every fight when he got older is quite overplayed. He never took such beatings that Bowe took from Golota for example. I can't even remember him getting hit as much in the first 4-5 rds as a prime Holyfield was by frigging Bert Cooper. Nor, of course, a prime Tyson by Douglas.

As per the video: Ali threw not one body punch. Not one! He was relying on coming over Bugner's jab with a right and now and then threw a left hook or flurried with uppercuts that should have been countered by Bugner. His jab was always special but Ali relied on the jab, the right, and a hook that was usually slapping the opponent's head into range of his right. He didn't have much more in his offensive arsenal.

It's true he almost completely disdained the body. I think the hooks he throws here are good, though. As is of course the jab and the right.

Defense? He's pulling back and turning away from shots and holding.

What? Here I clearly disagree. Except for one instance in the very beginning of the round he is staying in the pocket, moving his head, slipping punches and countering. He keeps his hands low and ignores the body, but otherwise...

His punches are crisp and sharp (even the left hook) and his footwork is golden. He's continually cutting Bugner off. He keeps his chin down, leans forward to expose himself as little as possible and slips and counters. Both on the outside with the right and inside with the left hook.


Ps. Nice clip by the way. From a technical standpoint I'd like to see a bit more head and upper body movement from Johnson, but he's got just about flawless text book technique. That right was an absolute beauty.

[JohnThomas1]

Jones at his finest is a fantastic defensive fighter. His reflexes were unbelievable.

[laxpdx]

RJJ was definitely among the greatest defensive masters of all time. Without question. Late career setbacks shouldn't count against him. Every fighter inevitably declines.

[Jersey Joe]

In his prime he had really great defence. When he lost his reflexes, his defence became so so. That puts him below someone who had great defence in their prime, and still good defence when past prime. So I'd place him in the 2nd tier, behind the best defensive fighters like Pep, Locche, Whitaker etc.

[Stonehands89]

I've never claimed Ali is a technician in a text book sense. As you say, he developed his own technique to a large degree, but it is still technique. That's really where you and I differ. You see anything not text book as pure athleticism, which I don't. Take any NBA player, or what have you, with fantastic athletic ability and they still won't pull out the moves of a prime Jones or Ali. Not without a lot of practice.

Also, I think Ali had a bigger repertoire than he usually let on. You can see that in sparring clips from the mid 60's for example, but a notable example in an actual fight is when he fights Frazier on the inside in Manilla.

But to be clear: Ali had technical flaws. I'm not claiming anything different. I just think you tend to view it a bit black and white.
Not black & white... I look at it as a matter of degrees. Ali did some things very well. He did slip shots and roll very well. He moved with grace and balance. His jab was masterful. His right cross was often perfect.

I think that too many fans tend to hallucinate though. Tyson fans see him as a ferocious tough guy. He was not. Duran fans see him as worthy of excusing for No Mas. He was not. Jones fans see him as the top LHW ever and able to whip Moore and Charles on the same night. Ali was not a technician -unless you want to redefine and essentially water-down what that means in order to force it.

To call a fighter a "technician" or a "master mechanic" should be reserved for those who display certain a standard. Is that black and white? Boxing has evolved sensibly and there are good reasons for why fundamentals are so important. Ali scrapped most of them because he relied on athleticism far more than fundamentals. To call him an athletic marvel and not a master mechanic makes sense and may even be a higher complement.

And I also think this about him taking bad beatings in every fight when he got older is quite overplayed. He never took such beatings that Bowe took from Golota for example. I can't even remember him getting hit as much in the first 4-5 rds as a prime Holyfield was by frigging Bert Cooper. Nor, of course, a prime Tyson by Douglas.
I disagree. Ali took heavy punishment in Manila and afterwards. It is absolutely a major reason for current state. He absorbed the shots better than most and had a better chin that any of the three you mention but that doesn't mean his brain wasn't spinning on its stem.

I got one word for you. Shavers.


It's true he almost completely disdained the body. I think the hooks he throws here are good, though. As is of course the jab and the right.

What? Here I clearly disagree. Except for one instance in the very beginning of the round he is staying in the pocket, moving his head, slipping punches and countering. He keeps his hands low and ignores the body, but otherwise...

His punches are crisp and sharp (even the left hook) and his footwork is golden. He's continually cutting Bugner off. He keeps his chin down, leans forward to expose himself as little as possible and slips and counters. Both on the outside with the right and inside with the left hook.

Ps. Nice clip by the way. From a technical standpoint I'd like to see a bit more head and upper body movement from Johnson, but he's got just about flawless text book technique. That right was an absolute beauty.
Harold Johnson has earned the title of technician. Ali was not. Ali was a physical marvel, a ring general, and a genius... but not a technician.

Fair?

[Bokaj]

Not black & white... I look at it as a matter of degrees. Ali did some things very well. He did slip shots and roll very well. He moved with grace and balance. His jab was masterful. His right cross was often perfect.

Agree (of course).

To call a fighter a "technician" or a "master mechanic" should be reserved for those who display certain a standard. Is that black and white? Boxing has evolved sensibly and there are good reasons for why fundamentals are so important. Ali scrapped most of them because he relied on athleticism far more than fundamentals. To call him an athletic marvel and not a master mechanic makes sense and may even be a higher complement.

I've never called Ali a master technician. Don't really know what to call him. Perhaps an unorthodox technician, which also would include Roy Jones, Jersey Joe Walcott, and probably Burley and Moore to a degree. Much of what they did was self-taught and thereby especially designed for their special abilities. It's nothing a trainer should ever teach as a standard, but (as proven) it's deadly efficient for those with the right fit.


I disagree. Ali took heavy punishment in Manila and afterwards. It is absolutely a major reason for current state. He absorbed the shots better than most and had a better chin that any of the three you mention but that doesn't mean his brain wasn't spinning on its stem.

I got one word for you. Shavers.

Manilla and the Shavers fight certainly has a lot to do with his state today. But still, prior to Holmes he never even got close to taking such a one-sided beating as Bowe took from Golota, or as Tyson took from Douglas and Holyfield.


Harold Johnson has earned the title of technician. Ali was not. Ali was a physical marvel, a ring general, and a genius... but not a technician.

Fair?

See above. We're pretty close, I suppose. The main difference is probably that I would like to add "unorthodox technician" to your two categories "technician" and "savant".

[JohnThomas1]

I've never called Ali a master tactician. Don't really know what to call him. Perhaps an unorthodox tactician, which also would include Roy Jones, Jersey Joe Walcott, and probably Burley and Moore to a degree. Much of what they did was self-taught and thereby especially designed for their special abilities. It's nothing a trainer should ever teach as a standard, but (as proven) it's deadly efficient for those with the right fit.


Just to jump in here and keep you guys flowing i think you meant "technician".

[Bokaj]

Just to jump in here and keep you guys flowing i think you meant "technician".

Yeah. I'll edit.Thanks!:good

[JohnThomas1]

Cheers mate.

[lefthook31]

RJJ was definitely among the greatest defensive masters of all time. Without question. Late career setbacks shouldn't count against him. Every fighter inevitably declines.
Tell that to the young whipper snappers on here that think hes vastly overated because of those late career setbacks. :good

[JohnThomas1]

Tell that to the young whipper snappers on here that think hes vastly overated because of those late career setbacks. :good

I think you'll find it's the older brigade ;)

[ChrisPontius]

I rarely agree with lefthook31, but he raises some good points in this thread.

[Popkins]

Yes, I think he was a great defensive fighter, for the same reasons as most do on this thread.

However, I disagree with those who have said that Roy was good at fighting off the ropes, rope-a-dope etc. I do not think he was, at all, at least not compared to someone like Toney. Roy wasn't even as good as someone such as Azumah Nelson, who only fought there when necessary. I think that on the ropes was the only scenario where peak Roy did get hit, I definitely don't think he could've lasted a whole fight that way without getting dropped or stopped. When Roy went to the ropes in his prime, it was always only a matter of time before he sprung back out and reasserted his superiority.

[Flea Man]

Yes, I think he was a great defensive fighter, for the same reasons as most do on this thread.

However, I disagree with those who have said that Roy was good at fighting off the ropes, rope-a-dope etc. I do not think he was, at all, at least not compared to someone like Toney. Roy wasn't even as good as someone such as Azumah Nelson, who only fought there when necessary. I think that on the ropes was the only scenario where peak Roy did get hit, I definitely don't think he could've lasted a whole fight that way without getting dropped or stopped. When Roy went to the ropes in his prime, it was always only a matter of time before he sprung back out and reasserted his superiority.

Like in the Brannon fight. He's literally standing there letting this undefeated fighter 'do his thing' and let off steam because he knows he can do so. He knows this man doesn't have enough quality to get through those ear muffs and that as soon as his man gets tired Roy can take him out (as he did in, briefly merciful, fantastic fashion)

However; against someone that is going to pose him problems offense wise, I think Roy would be best pressed not to do this. He was much better on his feet, pulling away and dictating the pace with his pot shots, which in turn lead to combinations, and onto dominance or stoppages.

In short I felt he was doing the 'rope a dope' thing because he felt he could, not necessarily because it was always the right thing to do.

[lefthook31]

Like in the Brannon fight. He's literally standing there letting this undefeated fighter 'do his thing' and let off steam because he knows he can do so. He knows this man doesn't have enough quality to get through those ear muffs and that as soon as his man gets tired Roy can take him out (as he did in, briefly merciful, fantastic fashion)

However; against someone that is going to pose him problems offense wise, I think Roy would be best pressed not to do this. He was much better on his feet, pulling away and dictating the pace with his pot shots, which in turn lead to combinations, and onto dominance or stoppages.

In short I felt he was doing the 'rope a dope' thing because he felt he could, not necessarily because it was always the right thing to do.
Never understood why he did that in the earlier rounds, particularly later in his career when his chin was on the downslide. I think he could have easily kept a guy like Danny Green in the center of the ring if he so chose.

[Stonehands89]

See above. We're pretty close, I suppose. The main difference is probably that I would like to add "unorthodox technician" to your two categories "technician" and "savant".
I think we worked it out.

How about these rough categories for upper echelon fighters:

Technician, unorthodox and effective, and Savant.

...the term "unorthodox technician" strikes me as internally inconsistent. Technique suggests textbook, fundamentals, and the like, while unorthodox suggests the opposite.

[GPater11093]

SH, who would you consider the best Technically Defensive fighter?

[McGrain]

I agree that you can't be "unorthodoxly technically sound". That's the way I see it.

GP, I think the most technically correct defensive fighter is a tough question. I'll over you Micheal Watson as an answer.

[GPater11093]

I agree that you can't be "unorthodoxly technically sound". That's the way I see it.

GP, I think the most technically correct defensive fighter is a tough question. I'll over you Micheal Watson as an answer.

Watson against Benn is a clinic one of my favrouites.

I would probably say Zapata myself.

[Popkins]

SH, who would you consider the best Technically Defensive fighter?

Hopkins I'd say. Even though his smothering tactics are not from the purist textbook, his defensive style is very much a developed and honed system, it is not natural and intuitive. Every movement has been practiced and learned through many hours in the gym, and allows him to do pretty much everything perfectly from a defensive standpoint. When do you ever see B-Hop caught out of position or off guard? Very, very rarely. He is technically superb IMO.

[McGrain]

Watson against Benn is a clinic one of my favrouites.


Maybe the most impressive thing is that he keeps his technical discipline when pinned to the ropes under pressure against a top puncher.

[GPater11093]

Hopkins I'd say. Even though his smothering tactics are not from the purist textbook, his defensive style is very much a developed and honed system, it is not natural and intuitive. Every movement has been practiced and learned through many hours in the gym, and allows him to do pretty much everything perfectly from a defensive standpoint. When do you ever see B-Hop caught out of position or off guard? Very, very rarely. He is technically superb IMO.

good points in there. Never thought of old BHOP

Maybe the most impressive thing is that he keeps his technical discipline when pinned to the ropes under pressure against a top puncher.

Yeh very very impressive, what really impressed me asides the discipline was the way he held his hands shred to pieces, i myself have forgot to block with an open hand and got mashed up. Also Watsons timing when t strike was superb.

[Sweet Pea]

I liked McCallum vs Watson as a better choice for a true boxing clinic. An aging McCallum putting the young upstart Watson in his place and teaching him a thing or two about the sweet science. Damn near flawless performance.

[McGrain]

I liked McCallum vs Watson as a better choice for a true boxing clinic. An aging McCallum putting the young upstart Watson in his place and teaching him a thing or two about the sweet science. Damn near flawless performance.


Not to hijack your point - and I agree - but Watson showed some great heart in that fight. Unbreakable. He was a dead man walking at the end there and still waving his man in.

[Popkins]

I liked McCallum vs Watson as a better choice for a true boxing clinic. An aging McCallum putting the young upstart Watson in his place and teaching him a thing or two about the sweet science. Damn near flawless performance.

I agree. It's a monumental performance. Really opened my eyes to how truly great McCallum was. I know it's such an overused term on here, but I genuinely do think McCallum is underrated. In his prime he really was a very, very high-level operator.

[GPater11093]

I liked McCallum vs Watson as a better choice for a true boxing clinic. An aging McCallum putting the young upstart Watson in his place and teaching him a thing or two about the sweet science. Damn near flawless performance.

it was amazing

[Sweet Pea]

McCallum's slow feet were his only real flaw IMO. In a close to mid-range stand-off he could've held his own with pretty much anyone, but defensive slicksters and movers (as Kalambay showed in particular) made him look like his feet were planted in cement.

[Popkins]

McCallum's slow feet were his only real flaw IMO. In a close to mid-range stand-off he could've held his own with pretty much anyone, but defensive slicksters and movers (as Kalambay showed in particular) made him look like his feet were planted in cement.

How many fighters who ever graced the 154 division would have beaten him do you think? Other than Hearns, I'd probably say none.

[McGrain]

How many fighters who ever graced the 154 division would have beaten him do you think? Other than Hearns, I'd probably say none.

Bob Fitzsimmons! :D

[Flea Man]

How many fighters who ever graced the 154 division would have beaten him do you think? Other than Hearns, I'd probably say none.

I don't think Hearns is a given either. What about Griffith? How would he fare against McCallum?

[Popkins]

Bob Fitzsimmons! :D

But wasn't he from a prehistoric era that doesn't count??! :D

[McGrain]

But wasn't he from a prehistoric era that doesn't count??! :D


Sure he was from the prehistoric era. I don't think McCallum could out box an albertosaurus either ;)

[Popkins]

I don't think Hearns is a given either. What about Griffith? How would he fare against McCallum?

I don't think Hearns is a given exactly, not over 15 rounds anyway. But I'd probably favour him over 12, although of course McCallum carries the live puncher's chance that he could do to Tommy what he did to Don Curry.

I find it so difficult to have a strong conviction about any hypothetical involving Griffith. Thinking about how he would do against virtually anyone just drains my confidence away. I can just imagine him dragging anyone into his kind of fight and making it close as hell. I'll duck that one if you don't mind! :D

[Popkins]

Sure he was from the prehistoric era. I don't think McCallum could out box an albertosaurus either ;)

I think Fitzsimmons could blitz a powerpuncherodactyl though.

[McGrain]

I think Fitzsimmons could blitz a powerpuncherodactyl though.

da fuck?

[Popkins]

da fuck?

From the current thread on Fitz as the GOAT:

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not

[Bokaj]

...the term "unorthodox technician" strikes me as internally inconsistent. Technique suggests textbook, fundamentals, and the like, while unorthodox suggests the opposite.

This is really hairsplitting, but for me the term "technique" can be applied to anything you learn by training. I e making your body and nervous system accustomed to it; consciously patterning it in your movements and reactions.

But "text book technique" (or fundamentals) can be applied to anyone and that's why it's the one being taught in gyms. Its great advantage is that it is uniform and applicable to every situation. Its disadvantage is that it can be predictable, and if used to literally, even a bit robotic.

"Unorthodox technique", on the other hand, is taylor made for the individual, and specialised for a certain style and certain talents. Its advantage is that it makes the most of the individual's special traits and talents and that it's unpredictable. Its disadvantage is that it is not applicable to everyone or to every given situation. Hence, as the individual changes (ages) the unorthodox technique losses a lot of its effectiveness.

In Ali's case he somewhat compensated for aging in three ways:

1. He started using more fundamentals. He never became a text book technician, but he at least used text book tecnique a bit more. For example, he wasn't as vulnerable to left hooks again after FOTC. He learned that his reflexes and legs weren't enough for him to disdain blocking them anymore.

2. He learned that he could take a punch.

3. He started to use new unorthodox techniques that he had practiced since he was a young man. One such was holding. Not pretty, but a part of most skilled boxers' arsenal. More famously, he learned how to stand with parallell feet and his back against the ropes, protecting the vulnerable areas with arms and gloves while still maintaining balance as well as getting leverage and sharpness in his punches. The rope-a-dope. He started training for this as early as before the first Liston fight, but made full use of it against Foreman.

In Jones' case I can't really say. He seemed to be holding his hands up more, but his chin detoriated if anything.

[Stonehands89]

This is really hairsplitting, but for me the term "technique" can be applied to anything you learn by training. I e making your body and nervous system accustomed to it; consciously patterning it in your movements and reactions.

But "text book technique" (or fundamentals) can be applied to anyone and that's why it's the one being taught in gyms. Its great advantage is that it is uniform and applicable to every situation. Its disadvantage is that it can be predictable, and if used to literally, even a bit robotic.
Most of the greats have high levels of the following three practical, if you will, assets:

1. Technical skill
2. Athleticism
3. Will

The technician who can bang, like Moore, Arguello, Charles, Louis, et al, has athleticism to enhance that textbook.

The speed guy who is nasty inside has an advantage as well, becuase his natural athleticism is delivered more safely and he is more well-rounded. Meldrick Taylor for example.

But the strongest foundation is built on fundamentals. There are exceptions, big ones, but as a general rule, guys who fight like Ali will never advance beyond the amateurs because they get wrecked or chased out of the gym.

"Unorthodox technique", on the other hand, is taylor made for the individual, and specialised for a certain style and certain talents. Its advantage is that it makes the most of the individual's special traits and talents and that it's unpredictable. Its disadvantage is that it is not applicable to everyone or to every given situation. Hence, as the individual changes (ages) the unorthodox technique losses a lot of its effectiveness.
Well, I think that you may be overthinking this. Ali didn't tailor-make anything and no part of his style was tailor made for him. He relied on instincts and his gut, he did not strategize or fight off of a boiler plate. He was gifted with something else that made it unnecessary for him to drill or practice anything but what his instincts told him to practice.

Ali wasn't marching to a different drummer. He had jazz riffs in his head.

In Ali's case he somewhat compensated for aging in three ways:

1. He started using more fundamentals. He never became a text book technician, but he at least used text book tecnique a bit more. For example, he wasn't as vulnerable to left hooks again after FOTC. He learned that his reflexes and legs weren't enough for him to disdain blocking them anymore.

2. He learned that he could take a punch.

3. He started to use new unorthodox techniques that he had practiced since he was a young man. One such was holding. Not pretty, but a part of most skilled boxers' arsenal. More famously, he learned how to stand with parallell feet and his back against the ropes, protecting the vulnerable areas with arms and gloves while still maintaining balance as well as getting leverage and sharpness in his punches. The rope-a-dope. He started training for this as early as before the first Liston fight, but made full use of it against Foreman.

In Jones' case I can't really say. He seemed to be holding his hands up more, but his chin detoriated if anything.
I personally, think that it is an unspoken tragedy that Ali fought at all after 1973 ...1975 at the latest. I do not believe that he adjusted much of anything in their besides rudimentary stuff -he relied on his will and his chin -and that just isn't healthy.

It is a great irony that the man who was the most beautiful boxer since Robinson himself -so graceful and lithe and barely touched in the mid 60s became the most famous victim of the brutality of the sport.

He was an old butterfly trying to avoid threshers.

I wish he retired after Foreman.

[Bokaj]

Most of the greats have high levels of the following three practical, if you will, assets:

1. Technical skill
2. Athleticism
3. Will

The technician who can bang, like Moore, Arguello, Charles, Louis, et al, has athleticism to enhance that textbook.

The speed guy who is nasty inside has an advantage as well, becuase his natural athleticism is delivered more safely and he is more well-rounded. Meldrick Taylor for example.

But the strongest foundation is built on fundamentals. There are exceptions, big ones, but as a general rule, guys who fight like Ali will never advance beyond the amateurs because they get wrecked or chased out of the gym.


Well, I think that you may be overthinking this. Ali didn't tailor-make anything and no part of his style was tailor made for him. He relied on instincts and his gut, he did not strategize or fight off of a boiler plate. He was gifted with something else that made it unnecessary for him to drill or practice anything but what his instincts told him to practice.

Ali wasn't marching to a different drummer. He had jazz riffs in his head.

Well, let's just say we disagree somewhat, but not completely. I remain convinced that there were more method to Ali's style than most think. Concerning Roy Jones I couldn't really say. Haven't followed him that closely.

This whole discussion got me thinking of technicians with sound fundamentals who mix in the unorthodox. Leonard would be a good exampel of this, perhaps also Whitaker. Just rewatched Leonard-Hagler yesterday. It was interesting to note how Leonard mixed very correct defending with more unorthodox, and how well this worked.

[GPater11093]

Well, let's just say we disagree somewhat, but not completely. I remain convinced that there were more method to Ali's style than most think. Concerning Roy Jones I couldn't really say. Haven't followed him that closely.

This whole discussion got me thinking of technicians with sound fundamentals who mix in the unorthodox. Leonard would be a good exampel of this, perhaps also Whitaker. Just rewatched Leonard-Hagler yesterday. It was interesting to note how Leonard mixed very correct defending with more unorthodox, and how well this worked.

I can see what you both are saying.

I think Bokaj despite Ali not being textbook by the general accepted sense that Stonehands is saying, Ali had his own textbook where he did things his way - he didnt just make it up completly as he went along. If this is what you are meaning I full heartedly agree.

So Muhammed Ali is an 'Ali technician'

[Bokaj]

I can see what you both are saying.

I think Bokaj despite Ali not being textbook by the general accepted sense that Stonehands is saying, Ali had his own textbook where he did things his way - he didnt just make it up completly as he went along. If this is what you are meaning I full heartedly agree.

So Muhammed Ali is an 'Ali technician'

My man.:good

[Bokaj]

I'm very interested in how the "Death Row" guys (Burley, Walcott, Moore etc) developed their particular styles. You can see that they are not as schooled as for example Louis or Robinson, but makes up for it by developing traits of their own.

I mean, if Blackburn had taken Walcott under his wings at an early stage, would he be as exciting to watch?

[Mantequilla]

McCallum's slow feet were his only real flaw IMO. In a close to mid-range stand-off he could've held his own with pretty much anyone, but defensive slicksters and movers (as Kalambay showed in particular) made him look like his feet were planted in cement.

Yeah, i think it speaks well for McCallum's skillset that you could probably argue that his fights with Kalambay and Toney(the second and first specifically) are about as close as we'll see from a more recent fighter to what a lot of the great competitive murderers row fights might have looked like from a stylistic perspective.