Objectively great fighters that don't pass the eye test

Joe Frazier blew out his left eye

 

I feel like Monzon and Sanchez are the two most obvious. I feel like this applies to Bernard Hopkins as well and to a lesser degree a few more of the great Mexican fighters. (Barrera and Morales)

I like the suggestion of Froch too, just a "meh" type of fighter who had a pretty damn good career looking back.

Thought Dmitri Pirog although he had a funky style just looked strange and ordinary in his dismantling of 2 pretty good fighters. Shame his career never really got off the ground.

 

Sanchez?? Sal had a very smooth, aesthetically pleasing style.

 

I feel like I read this original topic as not being eye catching... if they were coming up you'd think... pretty good but not great.

The reverse of guys like Nigel Benn... looks like a total world beater until in there with good fighters than seems ultra limited.

Always felt that way about B-Hop too. Definitely good, but not the level he turned out to be.

Don't see Marciano either as fitting this. He had a sneaky style, and very creative ways to set up huge shots as well as a granite chin.

 

Pretty much most great fighters should pass the eye test if you're being observant enough imo, even allowing for differences in knowledge and how subjective the phrase is. It gets a bit more knotty pre-1920 with the difference in rulesets, equipment, style and poor quality of footage etc. Some like Corbett, Attell, Freddie Miller, McGovern don't look great if compared to modern greats under modern rules but plenty still look brilliant, if of their time somewhat. McFarland, Driscoll, Gans etc.

The more modern fighters who it might partially apply to are the ones who can do a lot of things really well and are natural fighters with a high IQ but can be untidy in application or don't have the greatest or most consistency with their technique. Maybe aren't aesthetically pleasing. Even someone like Monzon looks technically refined and pleasing to me despite being a shade awkward at times and hindered by arthritis and the shot shoulder later in his career.

 

he is talking literally...like about retinas

 

Yup! Exactly what I said earlier! Virtually every ATG should pass the eye test as long as you apply nuance.

 

I think the point of the thread is to.identify these atg who's grestness is harder to identify with the eye test. Of course, none of them would outright fails it

 

Yeah, this part i understand.

I realize that its harder to discern the talent of Monzon as opposed to Robinson, whose talent just jumps right out at you.

 

Jesus wept.

"yes I've a question but first I'd like to talk about myself for a bit"...

And the question, when it arrived.....

"what do YOU think of MY training regime"

Go away Carl

 

Floyd broke his hands knocking out scrubs.

BOXREC has examined this claim and has determined that it FAILS the eye test.

 

Floyd thinking: "I dunno even know who the fuck he is, but if he wanna impress me, he need to prove he have the cars."

 

Froch: "Canelo, do you have a moment? Your fight this weekend reminds me of the build-up to the my second fight with George Groves, in which I knocked him spark out in front of 80,000 fans at Wemb.."

 

Say what you like about Froch and his vomit inducing Midlands monotone, he could tile a kitchen like a motherfucker.

 

more precisely, how likely the eye test is to produce a false negative. there are countless examples of the eye test producing false positives.

 

"was his swimming lessons paid for"

 

"in one of my buy to rents, IN SHERWOOD"