Objectively great fighters that don't pass the eye test

Erik Morales, though a great, never blew me away.

Of the top 10 Mexican greats, I find Morales the least impressive to watch.

 

Marciano is probably the best example so far.

Yeah, Vitaly is a hard one to gauge. Looked pretty ankward but was very effective vs the quite limited opposition he faced. Would have been fun to see him try his thing vs tougher opponent

 

He said wlad, not vitaly.

And i disagree vehemently with wlad not passing the eye test. Coming up and when faced against weak opposition, wlad looked like magic.

 

I sort of agree with you. Out of Barrera, Marquez, and Morales. Erik is the least polished out of the three. But can you honestly say the boxing lesson he gave Pacquiao on their first fight wasn't pretty?

 

I think I agree Vitaly had an uglier style but it raises a second question was he great like Vlad? I don't think he was Great.

 

That's weird, I read it as Vitali as well.

I agree with JOM that Wlad before he became an overly-affectionate octopus had a really nice style to watch.

Vitali seems more fitting to the topic and I would say he was better than Wlad too. More awkwardly-effective, better chin, hardly lost rounds, and better results against common opponents with the exception of Byrd. I think he was generally just tougher to beat.

 

Vitali was a very poor man's Monzon. The two had similar styles.

Difference being, Monzon had extra gears he go into if needed, whereas Vitali just was who he was.

 

Agreed, while Morales wasn't smooth, he had great combos, good technic, decent speed and frightening power. While I agree that it was his intangibles more than anything else that made him great, he was a physical marvel nonetheless. Pretty hard to come up with good examples

 

Oh yeah indeed , Wlad to me looked like a million dollar too when he let his hands go. In fact, I'd say he's the total opposite of what this thread is aboyt (he usually looked better than he actually was due to poor intangibles).

 

Not sure he counts as 'great', but the obvious answer which came to my mind is the fighting farmer himself: Carl Froch.

MTF

 

he doesnt

 

Yeah, Froch isn't a great. He falls into the "very good" category.

 

I'm not convinced he's any worse than Wlad or Vitali, frankly, but fair enough.

MTF

 

Or Morales, for that matter...

MTF

 

Id say froch was a great, not an atg, but he clearly deserves a place in the hof.

His resume is among the best in the last 20 years

 

Completely disagree. I think there's plenty of guys with better résumés than Froch since 2000.

 

Are there? Froch literally faced every single elite level fighter in his division and holds a win over all bar one of them.

I couldn't name 'plenty of guys' who have a resume like that.

MTF

 

Well,. plenty is a vague term. Id certainly rate him in the top 15, if not higher

 

I think there was a point where he was definitely testing himself in a way that is rare in the modern fight game, going into fights where he was no more than 50/50 and putting it on the line. It's funny because for a long time I was thinking 'when's this Froch guy going to fight anyone decent?' and then he went on a run of fights between 2008 and 2012/3 which was against very impressive opposition.

 

He simply wasn't in the class of Morales, and I never cared for Morales. Erik was by far a more skilled and more accomplished fighter.

The Klits? Well, Froch was a lot mentally tougher than Wald, despite being less talented.

Vitali? Its a case where Froch had a better resume, but Vitali was a better fighter by a clear margin imo.

 

Wlad, Vitali and Morales were all way better than Froch.

Wlad and Morales clearly so.

 

Canelo

 

There's never an in-between with Froch. Either guys underrate him, or overrate him. Personally, I think considering him a great is overrating him. But maybe my standards for "great" are higher than others.

I don't consider Norris and Cotto greats, and I consider both those guys a class above Froch.

I think there's 1st tier very goods, and 2nd tier very goods. Froch is in that second tier. I'd put him roughly in the same tier as say.... Tall Paul.

 

You're underrating Froch by some margin imo. He's better than, and achieved a lot more, than Paul Williams. And I don't even think it is close.

MTF

 

I honestly can't see for one second how Wlad is 'way better' than Carl Froch. What is that based on? Bear hugging a load of scared stiffs for ten years? Putting together a long winning run in the worst version of the HW division in history? Getting laid out? Being spooked by a tall traveller who pulled more faces than he threw punches?

I simply can't see this at all. I think you are underrating Froch by a lot. And I'm not even a Froch fan. I think he's a dickhead.

MTF

 

I would say that beating a prime Margarito is the single best win between the two of them.

If your definition of great has Froch as a great, what other guys would you put in that class? Not trying to degrade you, just trying to see how our definitions of great differ.

Personally, I rank guys as all time greats, greats, very goods, and merely goods. Obviously, lower than good you have average, and bums, but we won't even discuss that low a class.

Jones, Duran, Robinson, Whitaker, Pac, Floyd, Louis, Ali, Monzon, Hagler, ect., those guys are ATGs.

Then you have DLH, Mosley, Barrera, Trinidad, Chocolatito, as guys I would consider great fighters, but a bit shy of all time greats.

Very goods, as I said, I would put into two tiers. But without getting into tiers, guys I would consider "very good" are: Cotto, Norris, Corrales, Castillo, Froch, Casamayor, Vargas, guys like that.

 

You can sit and denigrate Froch all you like. You can call him a farmer and laugh at his hilarious low handed stance and his deluded belief that he is some kind of speedy slickster. You can watch him getting hit in the head loads and chuckle.

But he absolutely amassed a tremendous resume. In arguably the most stacked division at that time, he fought everyone, one after the other. He beat Taylor, Pascal, Johnson, Kessler, Abraham, Direll, Bute and Groves. World champ after world champ, across multiple divisions. He was an underdog in more than one of those fights. And the one guy who definitely beat him (I scored the first Kessler fight a draw) was running from him by the end of their fight. And he was a borderline ATG.

What on earth has Wlad done that compares to that run?

MTF

 

Well, the way I see it is this. I don't think I can name ten 168lbers who are definitely greater than Carl Froch. I appreciate that 168 is a young division, but it has had some real quality in there over the decades. And Froch is one of the greatest there has been there. No doubt in my mind about it.

In a recent thread I ranked him the 4th greatest modern UK fighter. I ranked him above Calzaghe, and Hamed, and Barry, and Hatton. I'm being consistent. I think his resume is outstanding. I don't agree with you re: Marg. I don't think he was all that. I think Froch's wins over Taylor and Pascal are as good as those. The way he exposed Bute was outstanding, too. And I think Kessler was better than Margarita, though Froch beat an old version of him at the end.

I have no real issue with the idea that Froch is 'very good' or even 'great' (tier 2). I'm not claiming he's an ATG. He isn't. But I genuinely can't see how he is on the same step as Paul Williams or Wladimir Klitschko. He did more than both, and by a margin IMO.

MTF

 

Yeah, we won't be agreeing.

I dont think Froch belongs on the same level as Calzaghe and Hamed.

He has a pretty good case over Hatton and McGuigan in greatness. I think both those guys peaked higher though.

 

I think both Calzaghe and Hamed were 'better' than Froch. I'd pick Calzaghe to beat Froch easily, h2h. But Froch has a much better resume than Joe, and again, it isn't especially close.

MTF