Chavez- atg, at his peak from 84-89 was one of the greatest fighters to ever live.. A complete boxing machine, with great skill, heart, chin, stamina, power, body shots
Monzon- great fighter, alittle crude in his style but great fighter, one of the top 30 guys to ever compete
Frazier- great fighter, workhorse, like a lot of pressure fighters they peak early and have a short shelf live ie Tyson hatton, etc. but at his peak Frazier was nearly unstoppable
Morrison- solid contender, good marketability based off the rocky 5 movie and him being white country boy.. Never elite, but would be a solid contender in any era
Collins- limited skills but heart and determination was off the charts.. Really honest hard working fighter that finally hit big later in his career similar to glen johnson
We all know JCC, Monzon and Frazier were great, some of the greatest among their various divisions.
Morrison was barely average heavyweight.
Collins is interesting, he lost to most of the best fighters of his era but manged to beat a past prime Eubank in two tough, tough fights, I've always felt the second one should have been a win for Eubank. Then he beat up on a shot Benn twice, did nothing and retired.
Collins was a good fighter, tough and gruelling to watch but also a smug ****.
If this was a game of battleship you would be all over the place...
Monzon and Frazier are great fighters Chavez is also but maybe his legacy could be debated. I don't know much about Collins but Morrison...
Morrison had some potential and went up the ladder...Great puncher. YOu know heres the thing....Take a fighter like Nando, similar trajectory...some guys JUST don't make it to the next level. Morrison could have been a great fighter, Nando as well. What makes the difference? hard to say. In the old days things were such that at least a fighter could concentrate on the craft. These days guys can be tempted, can stray of course...I actually think it is better when the guys fought all the time they stayed focused.
I could see very clearly some guys like Mayorga, Nando, Morrison, Ibuchi, etc etc fighting so much they would have had no time to get into trouble.
We don't think about it this way but nurtering a fighter is a tender business! anything goes wrong problems happen and derfailment a lack of focus, maybe a stuid loss (now a days) and the fighter is suddenly a has been.
I mean he did beat George Foreman...I think you have to be better than average to do that.
The second George had a gimmick and a rock solid mental foundation but was not quite the same as the first George! Read Norman Mailer's piece on Foreman that he wrote for playboy to get an idea....the first george was a shark as mean and deadly as can be the second george was a teddy bear with a punch
The second George had a gimmick and a rock solid mental foundation but was not quite the same as the first George! Read Norman Mailer's piece on Foreman that he wrote for playboy to get an idea....the first george was a shark as mean and deadly as can be the second george was a teddy bear with a punch
Yeah I totally agree that the 2nd George was not as good as the 1st George,but he was still very very good.
Julio Cesar Chavez - One of the greats, a pressure fighter to rival any and all the great pressure fighters.
Carlos Monzon - Perhaps the best middleweight there has been, simple and unflashy style but deadly effective.
Joe Frazier - The great heavyweight pressure fighter with a great left hook.
Tommy Morrison - A contender....
Steve Collins - One of the best super-middleweights, good at most things without ever being really great at anything. Clever and efficient brawler who moved well but never had the hand-speed, agility or great skill of the very best. Would have been tough for anyone at 160 or 168 to defeat. Probably should never have fought at 160 and fought at 168 and 175 instead. Thinks he'd have defeated Roy Jones jr circa 1997 - no chance.
Comment