Who Was The Most Complete Heavyweight Champ Skill Wise?

[The Old LefHook]

Most limited? I'll go with Vlad or Cooney.

[DeeMoney]

Most limited? I'll go with Vlad or Cooney.

More limited, skill wise only, than Wilder?

Wilder was tough, had great reach, and obviously an AMAZING amount of power (especially in his right hand), but I don't think he had more skills than those two- and I was a big Wilder fan.

I think of it this way, put every fighter in the same body, with the same amount of strength, speed, athleticism, etc. Where all they have to differentiate themselves is their boxing skill and IQ. Who wins?

I think Cooney has a more complete offense than Wilder in this case (despite being dubbed a one arm fighter). Ditto with Vlad, whose a bit smarter in the ring as well.

[Blond Beast]

He could fight one way: stepping forward. Designed to get a KO early, if not he deteriorates by the mid rounds. It's so one-dimensional and reliant on youthful attributes, pretty much anybody who adopted that style was done as a fighter early.


But don't let me hijack this thread. I'll be excused.

Right. Some people still think Mike was a great inside fighter and looked to put his head on someone’s chest. Ridiculous. He actually constantly looked to the ref to separate them and create some space so he could slam in with a 1-2. That’s what worked for him. He got hit often on the clinch as other fighters were more willing to throw in that position than he was.
Yeah he had the right to the body followed by the right uppercut. A great combo for sure. Still he just kept throwing it until hopefully it landed. He was no counter puncher. He just cycled through his combos with no actual design to anything. He hit Holy with that body upper and Holy didn’t go anywhere. That’s what happens when you meet the other elite. Mike moved his head more often when no actual punch was coming. It’s was proactive more than reactive. He could pivot on a fighter early, but soon enough he became one of the most flat footed fighters ever in most of his fights. He had size 13.5 boots.
I love what he’s done for the sport and being overrated is a great compliment. It means the fans wanted him to win and admired his style. He’s overrated in actual ring skill. So many of his highlights are gym drills. As an attraction he was great.
Mike Tyson lost in the biggest supposed upset in history not someone else. That explains a lot.
People are sick of hearing it from me but the day after Tyson KO’d Spinks my old man told me a guy named Evander Holyfield will beat Mike Tyson. When they finally fought he only took even money from the patrons at the bar cause he didn’t want to ruin their night.

[The Old LefHook]

More limited, skill wise only, than Wilder?

Wilder was tough, had great reach, and obviously an AMAZING amount of power (especially in his right hand), but I don't think he had more skills than those two- and I was a big Wilder fan.

I think of it this way, put every fighter in the same body, with the same amount of strength, speed, athleticism, etc. Where all they have to differentiate themselves is their boxing skill and IQ. Who wins?

I think Cooney has a more complete offense than Wilder in this case (despite being dubbed a one arm fighter). Ditto with Vlad, whose a bit smarter in the ring as well.

Whops! I overlooked Wilder. I believe you corrected me correctly.

[JAB5239]

Didnt really throw left hooks either,he was basically left jab. right cross,"the old one two ,"as it used to be called .He had an excellent right uppercut though.

He also had an excellent right to the body, something you don't see a lot of heavyweights throw very often.

[The Old LefHook]

It is kind of odd, isn't it, that a guy with Wilder's record and KO percentage is even considered for this thread's obverse of "least complete?" But he may be the winner. Willard had a decent jab, better footwork and was very durable. A boxer has to be durable to be complete, I assume. Wilder was pretty durable himself. He did not go gentle into that good night.

[DeeMoney]

It is kind of odd, isn't it, that a guy with Wilder's record and KO percentage is even considered for this thread's obverse of "least complete?" But he may be the winner. Willard had a decent jab, better footwork and was very durable. A boxer has to be durable to be complete, I assume. Wilder was pretty durable himself. He did not go gentle into that good night.

Credit to him for that, he's got stones.

Along those lines, it goes to show how devastating his power was/is. Its one of the things I like about him, I like fighters who are to an extreme in various aspects.

[Ivich]

Lack of power is only some of it, mostly for non experts. I have never heard an expert criticize him for lack of power. He lacked other things, like a lefhook and body punching, both of which are highly desirable in a fighter's medicine bag. Sure, you can find him doing both these, if you search, but he never did them on a regular basis or even a sustained period in a particular fight.

Clay was the greatest outside fighter of all time IMO. When you are cruising around your opponent on the outside, no one hits that hard. He was also one of the more effective punchers of all time, which is obviously more important than punching hard. But he was also the most effective outside fighter of AT IMO. He only fought inside when he got older and had to, after the reinstatement of his license.

Don't stop there. His chin was enviable for a boxer. Not many were as sturdy. Remember that he was the best ring general ever as well. Leonard rivals him, but Leonard showed poor ring generalship in his biggest fight, whereas Clay was masterful in his biggy against Foreman. George was considered much more dangerous than Joe had ever been--he was the Frazier-destroyer who had treated Joe like a boy. According to the triangle theory George was supposed to win. But he got out-generaled, pure and simple, by a strategy probably not a single other fighter who ever lived would have employed without being forced to.

As far as this thread is concerned and its qualifications, Clay is too original for the thread. His traditional medicine bag was light. His tricks, as you mention, hailed from his superior athleticism, not tradition. His effectiveness was mostly self-created, self-imagined. He does not stack up as a hard puncher, yet was one of the more effective punchers ever. He beats every guy rated above him in this thread in an actual fight. We will see how those guys like three arrow punches straight into the face with laser accuracy. If Clay aimed for the chin he didn't hit the forehead.

How sure am I? I would bet my life, if several million dollars were also up for grabs to the winning bet, that Clay beats everyone mentioned so far, because I believe he beats everyone anyway.

I have heard all the legitimate arguments against him and all the ******ity and personal biases as well. I have seen Clay fight in real time, and seen everyone after that in real time too. He beats them, from everything I've seen. Clay goes in with any of them knowing he is much faster, though Tunney may be similarly fast.

Some of the fights are bound to be brutal. Any version of Clay (other than novice) up to Foreman will prevail, I believe. I would forecast that his toughest fight among the well-rounded group might be Fury, who has his own store of guile and generalship.

Good post! Just one query why do you refer to Ali as Clay?

[QueensburyRules]

Right. Some people still think Mike was a great inside fighter and looked to put his head on someone’s chest. Ridiculous. He actually constantly looked to the ref to separate them and create some space so he could slam in with a 1-2. That’s what worked for him. He got hit often on the clinch as other fighters were more willing to throw in that position than he was.
Yeah he had the right to the body followed by the right uppercut. A great combo for sure. Still he just kept throwing it until hopefully it landed. He was no counter puncher. He just cycled through his combos with no actual design to anything. He hit Holy with that body upper and Holy didn’t go anywhere. That’s what happens when you meet the other elite. Mike moved his head more often when no actual punch was coming. It’s was proactive more than reactive. He could pivot on a fighter early, but soon enough he became one of the most flat footed fighters ever in most of his fights. He had size 13.5 boots.
I love what he’s done for the sport and being overrated is a great compliment. It means the fans wanted him to win and admired his style. He’s overrated in actual ring skill. So many of his highlights are gym drills. As an attraction he was great.
Mike Tyson lost in the biggest supposed upset in history not someone else. That explains a lot.
People are sick of hearing it from me but the day after Tyson KO’d Spinks my old man told me a guy named Evander Holyfield will beat Mike Tyson. When they finally fought he only took even money from the patrons at the bar cause he didn’t want to ruin their night.

- - Mike fought to his physical dimensions, and it is quite skillful to utilize such a wide variety of footwork, body positioning and punches from all different angles by both hands. Very few fighters as in next to zero dominated like Mike as demonstrated by his KOs and wide scorecards.

U can be like many and discount him for continuing to fight while handicapped on strong, experimental psychiatric sedatives, but what ever. Had he had half a foot chopped off and continued to fight at that low level that was enough for him to collect belts and set new purse records, he'd be lauded to the gills.

The Ks likewise don't get credit their dominance on the cards and prodigious KO records thanks to their style of maximizing their size. They introduced the concept of fighting like a Big Man with prodigious offense and defense, but, lets face it, Americans were brainwashed to hate Soviets much like Germans and Japs in WW2, so emasculated Americans turtled up with fantasy baseball, football, and basketball and the UFC. The Ks controlled the pocket both in and out with smart, economical footwork complementing their size and reach where they didn't have resort to giving up rounds running like Ali. He was responsible for the overall decline of American boxing heavily saddled now wif the Heinie run and stink style that sends fans screaming to the UFC such that they are now a $5 Bil corporation whereas nobody in their right mind would ever buyout Haymon or Arum for even $10 mil.

[Anthony342]

That would be his biggest flaw indeed, however I believe this is a problem he corrected a little later on in his career. It was a problem against Qawi, Cooper, Bowe etc. But it wasn't against Foreman, Tyson, Lewis etc.

Also wasn't much of a problem in the second Bowe fight.