Top 10 Defensive Fighters?

Payakaroon is a great shout despite us only really seeing a shard of his potential when he didn't have the stomach for it anymore. A proper shame.

Alfonso Lopez was defensively very cute and slick, a mix of physical talent and educated smooth technique. His chin was shite though and he never really recovered from the two late disasters versus Espadas. Pinder was similar imo. Luis Ibarra was brilliantly gifted but like his countrymen Lopez and Pinder somewhat flakey and fragile despite his other gifts, defensive acumen included. Somewhat naive too.

 

Bernard Hopkins should be in the mix.

 

I wish there was footage available of prime Pinder.

 

In the end, my list came out as:

#10. Roberto Duran
#09. James Toney
#08. Muhammad Ali
#07. Miguel Canto
#06. Hilario Zapata
#05. Wilfred Benitez
#04. Willie Pep
#03. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
#02. Pernell Whitaker
#01. Nicolino Locche

 

Some guy did that about a month ago. Zelenoff got dropped, ran away, and hid in his apartment behind his parents.

 

Last time I sparred was with an amateur boxer 3 times your age. I don’t know how he still is able to do that at his age.

It’s pretty frustrating when an old guy walks through your uppercuts and then drops you.

 

Sounds like he qualifies for this list, then.

 

Yes, he most certainly did.

 

Maybe not top 10 worthy but Jimmy Young was an awkward fucker

 

Says a lot about how much RJJ's hurt his own legacy post-ruiz that he's hardly been deemed worthy of mention here. He barely took 10 flush shots in the entire 90s

 

Wlads greatest defensive attribute was the fastidiousness with which his promoters protected him from refs with an interest in enforcing the rules of the sport.

 

...which lead to the longest period that a heavyweight champion has ever gone without going down, despite having a soft chin.

So, great defense, or not? Do we respect style or results?

 

How about the rules?

 

Ugo you strike me as standing on neighbouring ground to the type of person who praises a company posting record profits due to skillful tax evasion. Yeah they ran off & kept the money. Yeah they displayed cleverness to do so. But the correct response is: fuck 'em - somebody enforce the rules!

 

George Benton deserves a shout

 

Kalambay deserves mention, if hasn't been mentioned already.

 

Not a valid comparison.

Yes, excessive clinching is forbidden as is excessive running. Stuff like low blows, elbows, head butting are forbidden altogether, yet several great fighters are known for them. Tyson, Duran, Holyfield etc, you know them as well as I do.

When is holding 'excessive'? Rules don't tell you that, it is up to the referee (and only him) to decide. Thus, you can't say that the referee doesn't "follow the rules", when the referee is the rules. If a fighter hits low and the ref doesn't warn him, the ref cleatly makes an error. If a fighter clinches and the ref doesn't warn him, it isn't an error but an interpretation.

So, you don't really have a basis for "Wlad is a cheat" argument, since he is less of a cheat than Holyfield, who headbutted continuously.

However, I know from experience that your actual argument is that Wlad's style was not aesthetically pleasing and broke against the "spirit" of boxing. That I simply disagree with.

 

Boxing's two guys fighting with their fists & Wlad's clinching completely suspended the play sometimes dozens of times per round - so, aye, of course that form of cheating's against its spirit. Not to mention its raison detre as a spectator sport. Can't see much ground to disagree there but you're entitled not to care.

 

Wald Pussy belongs nowhere remotely close to this thread.

 

Not top 10 worthy but Tyson Fury is a modern heavyweight who doesnt need to call a Time Out to evade punches.

 

Regarding Wald - this thread should be reserved for fighters who had a true talent for LEGALLY evading punches - whether through unbelievable skill (Canto, Locche), insane reflexes (Roy, Benitez), or a combination of both (Floyd, Duran, Whitaker, Zapata).

Wald's mode of defense was SPOILING - he has no place here.

 

Do you have a link to the vid? For schadenfreude purposes...

 

I can see Jones and Kalambay above Toney.

 

If Wlad gets in, so does Bonecrusher Smith

 

Of course, Wlad won his bouts, Bonecrusher didn't.

In my opinion, the results are the only logical way to evaluate fighter's capabilities. If a fighter doesn't get hit, and wins, he has a good defense. If he doesn't get hit but loses (Gainer-style), he doesn't. Style does not come to play.

Saying that Wlad doesn't belong is a case of popularity, not success. It is understandable, but by same token you could claim that Ali doesn't belong: he spoiled fights by dancing and clinching instead of fighting "properly".

Anyways, since I find the premise of the thread puzzling altogether, I won't ruin the party anymore.

 

I don't recall anybody listing Ali. Only mainsteamers think of Ali as a great defensive fighter.

He was elusive in the 60s, purely due to his superb reflexes and feet. Once those eroded, yeah, he did depend on a lot of holding. Though to be fair, Ali had a brilliant ability to ride with punches - Wald could never do that.

And I have no clue what's puzzling about asking who are the best defensive fighters in history. It's an extremely simple question.

 

I'll still comment this. I find it puzzling that on one hand, people want to see a boxing bout as a 'fight' instead of a 'mere sport', as if it were somehow more 'real'. However, if it were an actual fight, clinching would be among the most natural and logical ways of defending yourself, and winning the fight. So if you want to see a fight, clinching is a part of it.

Of course, kicking and wrestling are also parts of a natural fight and they are forbidden. In the rules of 1700s (Broughton rules) both were allowed, London Prize Ring Rules of 1800s still allowed wrestling. When Queensberry rules were introduced, they were seen as pussy rules because of all the restrictions and the ten-second count (bit off topic, but belongs to the upcoming argument).

So, boxing has been restricted from real fighting, and turned into a sport. It has been developed so that it would 1) be somewhat safe and 2) offer spectators entertainment. The question then becomes, how much we should stress the entertainment factor, which is an aspect of sport, not fighting.

Most people seem to prefer action where there are several punches landed and the fighter's can show their braveness and guts (I think you would agree?). So where do we draw the line, which techniques should be disallowed, so that we would see cool fights? Clinching? Maybe. How about moving backwards? What about holding a turtle guard? All these are moves that reduce the amount of punches landed. Why would we call clinching as 'cheating' but not dancing around?

This slippery slope is my problem. Wlad won his fights according to the rules (because, as said before, the line of 'excessive' is unclear and all the referees allowed it) of the sport and in a way that is natural for a fight. The only problem was with his aesthetics, and if we open that can, by the same token claim that lateral movement and holding a high guard are also "against the spirit of the sport".

 

Seems quite a strange way of looking at it. Lots of mitigating factors there. Is going the distance and losing a bad result? Wlad would never go the distance with Tyson. Sometimes defence and ability just don't overlap. Saad Muhammad was a much greater fighter than Willie Pastrano, but that doesn't mean he's better defensively. I think saying Wlad doesn't belong comes through of a fairly reasonable point of view, not a place of bias. I actually quite like Wlad - always have - but I wouldn't even call him the best defensive heavyweight of his era. And this is an era which is incredibly poor, and oafs like Sam Peter are atop the division. I'd say Byrd's defence is better.

I'd say Ali's defence in the 60s/early 70s was excellent based on his reflexes alone. His clinch game was much more sophisticated than Wlad's, he was excellent at parrying and blocking body shots, and he was much better at riding with shots, as Xplosive says.

What's puzzling you? I'll help anyway I can.

 

The problem, which I tried to describe on the first page, is to separate "skill" from "tactics".

Let's compare Lennox Lewis with Mike Tyson. Similar level of fighters from almost the same era, achievement-wise Lewis is ahead, but not by much.

Which one of the two had the better defense? Lewis got hit clearly less. Does that resolve the issue right away? Not necessarily, since Lewis also fought much more safety-first. Tyson got hit, but not that much considering his style. Does that count for something?

Also, Tyson could withstand getting hit, so keeping as tight a guard as possible wasn't useful for his strategy, which was offensively oriented (with his size he didn'thave much options). Lewis on the other hand had to protect his beard.

Lewis' style of defense was quite simple. He used the distance, held a pretty high guard and clinched. Also his punching power worked as a pre-emptive defense, as his opponents had to be wary of attacking him.

Tyson's defensive moves were more complicated, and perhaps more difficult to master. However, Lewis' defense worked very well for his style and his measurements, so there was no point in trying to learn the most complex moves. Had a guy of Lewis' size tried to bob and weave, it wouldn't have worked.

I don't know which would be the correct conclusions here. Now, add in different weight classes and their demands, different opponents for all fighters etc and the question about best defense becomes too tricky for me to approach.

As said, I can stay out of this, but I'd like to hear your pick for the better defense between Lewis and Tyson