The physically LEAST talented ATG fighter ever?

De la Hoya had good handspeed, good selection of weapons and he was durable and was OK defensively, he's not one I would consider on this thread

 

How about Hopkins btw? His success was mainly build on his footwork and intelligence in the ring, more so than speed, power and chin

 

Bhop was fairly athletic though. At least a lot more than Monzon. Id say that Morales and Arguello are also good contenders. Both were slow and unathletic, and in Morales case, even his power wasnt all that

 

Other than being black I don't see anything too "athletic" about Hopkins, even when he was younger. He's a good choice because his reflexes didn't and reaction time didn't even seem all that great. He was very patient and seemed to constantly make good decisions.

 

It's also cliche to label all Mexican fighters as "slow" and "face first." alm:

 

Nah man, Hopkins was as talented as they come. Intelligence is a talent, as is footwork and ring generalship. On top of that his stamina was legendary and his chin was among the best in history. At age 50, Kovalev couldn't stop him. How many 50 year olds in history could survive Kovalev?

 

Footwork and ring generalship are learned traits, not physical talents, which is what this thread is about. I admit some of these fall into a grey area but I tend to view this topic as a fighter who lacked physical attributes such as speed or power yet was able to overcome these deficits BECAUSE of things like ring IQ.

I wouldn't use Hopkins as an example to be honest, I think he was deceptively fast. Possibly because he had such good timing and trigger speed. I never really got the whole Morales being slow thing either, he seemed quick enough to me.

 

Vito Antuofermo might just be the best cripple in the history of boxing.

 

I find " talent" topics frustrating on this forum. Y'all act like talent is just speed and power ( heavily indexed in speed). I've seen lots of fast guys with meaningless speed who I wouldn't call particularly talented. For me, talent equals ability. Ability in boxing is the art of hitting and not getting hit at its core. If we reduce " talent " to just agility then what is the point of this fucking discussion? May as well call Usain Bolt or Michael Jordan talented boxers since they had agility in spades

 

"Talent" is difficult to define. For me at least in part it means abilities that individuals are born with and simply cannot be taught. While it's obvious people can born with above average intelligence that's not the same thing as "ring smarts". It's just too specialized. I can't imagine how somebody is born biologically with such an ability.

 

To avoid some of the trouble I specifically defined this thread being about physical talent.

Of course intelligence, heart and ability to learn are talents too. This way however you can't separate 'talented' and 'good' anymirr

 

Carlos Ortiz

 

Great point, especially considering that two mexicans were named in this thread alm:

 

Fair enough UGO, physical talent.

Hopkins still doesn't qualify though because as a physical specimen he's built for boxing. Long lean frame, long arms, long strong legs ( no homo), his movements are fluid as a result of his light skeleton which is a natural gift and cannot be taught

 

I dont see why height is considered a talent. Tyson was as stocky as they came and he wasn't devoided of talent

 

Tysons lack of height wasn't an advantage . He was great despite his lack of height. In boxing height for your weight is always an advantage . It gives you more options in your game plan. If you're short with short arms you can only fight one way typically .

 

Disagreed . Height is not necessarly an advantage and long arms are usually a disavantage in the insides.

 

Does Michael Spinks fit the bill?

He didn't had anything that jumped at you, and even seemd a bit clumsy, but he was as good as they came.

 

with height and long arms you don't have to fight inside of you have the skills. That's the point.

 

With strenght, and a stocky build, you dont't have to fight outside if you have the skills.
fighting outside is not an advantage per se. Usually, stockier fighter will be more effective inside, while lankier one are more effective on the outside. Both body types have its advantage and disadvantage

 

THen you will also need POWER.....you would have to be Whitaker or Floyd defensively skilled to not get slaughter inside.

 

Not really. million of mexican fighters are great on the inside, while having decent power at best.

 

If that were true, we would see much more 6'0 heavyweights who are successful. Considering that average height has grown all the time and top class fighters under 6'2 have been rare for decades, it is safe to say that height and reach are usually a talent.

The same way you could say that punching power is not a talent since several of the best fighters in the history (Ali,Pep, Whitaker) and even more contenders haven't been punchers

 

HW is different since there is no weight limit, so the taller guy is usually the heavier and stronger guy also, which is not the case in the other weight classes.

 

How many dominant middleweights have been shorter than Hagler?

 

How many have been taller than Hearns ? Or better question, how many Greats MW were noticeably taller than most of their opponents ? I'd say that in every weight classe (bar HW) there is pretty much a standard average height, and most good fighter will be pretty close to it. For example, modern MW are about 5-11tall, and most good one are one or two inches smaller or taller. It is not an advantage being a 6-5 tall MW (like Ikeke was), as you'll be too weak in the inside, and have weak legs.

 

Hearns won fights because he........wait why am I arguing with this French Fag :dunno:

 

still mad that I called your hero a quitter, fatso ::

 

Height and long arms has always been an advantage in boxing. I can't believe I'm even having to try to explain this. Lol