Objectively great fighters that don't pass the eye test

Which fighters stand out in this regard?

 

Exhibit A - Carlos Monzon




REED

 

Monzon's performance in the first Griffith fight was honestly one of the better exhibitions ever imo.

 

Nino Benvenuti was a great fighter, but he certainly didn't have the prettiest style. He was a superb technician though

 

How Many MORE Monzon Performances Do You Rate THAT Highly???...

He WASN'T an "Eye Test" Guy, Bruh...Not Consistently...



REED

 

Spinks to a certain extent

Marciano

 

if we're talking ATG, it probably is a short list. The eye test is notorious for false positives, but it does not as often give false negatives.

 

Carlos Monzon was the first to come to mind

 

He was spectacular against Napoles and a few others, but I would consider Griffith 1 his apex performance.

It depends on what your eye is looking for. Roy, Leonard, Robinson, those guys had talent that just jumps off the screen, even to a casual.

A casual would never "get" Monzon, but assessing him with nuance - how well he controlled distance, how superb his ring generalship was, how he never looked flustered, never looked tired, and didn't take a lot of flush shots. All while dominating a solid division for damn near a decade... I'd say he does better on the eye test than ppl give him credit for.

 

Yeah, but among atg, you wont find any that are horrible. Monzon is among the top choice

What was impressive about Monzon is that he could do his things against elite opposition. But if you only saw him doing his jab, pull, right hand against low level opposition, pretty much nobody would think he could best these elite guys

 

I thought Monzon looked like shit for the first few rounds vs Napoles. I had Nap sweeping the first four iirc.

 

Spinks is a good one. His style was awkward-looking but he was a nightmare for almost everybody he faced.

 

Sandy Saddler is a possible too.

 

I think Saddler and Spinks look really good.

Harry Greb...

 

how about pryor?

 

Yeah, Mike Spinks' movement was awkward, but when he let his hands go, its impossible for him not to pass the eye test. He had one punch power in either hand, very fast hands, a full arsenal of punches, and threw great combinations, at both long- and short-range. Its hard not to be impressed with that.

 

Pryor passes the eye test. The average guy on the street would watch Pryor and Monzon, and be more impressed with Pryor, even though Monzon was better.

 

so eye test here refers to the average guy on the street?

 

Not sure. To me, virtually every ATG in the modern era passes the eye test, if you use nuance in assessing all of them.

Pre-modern era, its obviously different for guys like say, Langford.

Some greats are more electrifying than others (Louis, Duran, Jones, Leonard), but even in the less exciting greats like Ortiz and Monzon, they pass my eye test at least.

 

I think Langford looks really good on film.

 

Maybe I'm just lashing out at the delusional people who say that Langford would have beaten Tyson and Lewis.

But to my point, an example is Marciano. He had an ugly style, but you if you analyze him - he had a very solid defense, he was actually an aggressive COUNTER PUNCHER to be honest, which is something people never mention. He had one punch power in either hand, and had endless stamina.

On that basis, he passes the eye test.

 

the way to answer this would be too look back at fighters in your lifetime who at one time you did not think looked good but turned out to be great. otherwise, confirmation bias and hindsight clouds our ability to judge whether or not they truly passed our own eye tests. that said, i'm still having trouble identifying any, although if i'm being honest and block out my knowledge of spink's career, i do feel his unusual movement and awkwardness would cause him to fail my eye test. of course, if i could make the claim that i knew all along he was brilliant, even as others overlooked it, i might impress others with my very discerning eyes.

 

Ive never felt like Monzon looked as good as he was

 

Maybe it's more to do with aesthetically-pleasing styles (which is also subjective). I mean, Terry Norris looked amazing for a while and passed the eye test for most people but his temperament and chin were the things that let him down.

Spinks in my opinion had an awkward-looking style but that probably helped make him a difficult-to-predict proposition.

 

I think that if pristine footage locked away and not degraded in any way turned up that showed Harry Greb in his prime, his style would probably not be the most pleasing to the eye but it wouldn't take anything from the fact that he was a true great.

Thank god Robinson doesn't look like shit on film, though.

 

Right?!

He Keeps Referring to “Casuals” and “Average Guys on the Street”, NONE of Which Post at Fightbeat.

Some Greats are More Aesthetically Pleasing Than Others. Is What It Is…





REED

 

Perhaps it was BECAUSE He was a Contemporary of Salvador Sanchez, But Eusebio Pedroza Wasn’t Terribly Pleasing to REED’s Eye Either…




REED

 

You don't think his clinic of Patrick Ford was fun to watch?

 

It's all subjective.

You just said Pedroza wasn't pleasing to YOUR eye. He was pleasing to watch to me.

 

Vlad Klitschko- He was very dominant but had a boring style. I believe he is a great fighter because he had a long reign of the HW crown but I question whether it was due to his greatness or lack of competition? He most definitely wasn't pretty to look at, very up and down, very stiff and European style. If I was some Casual I probably wouldn't think much of him.