Boxing Forums banner

if you were to rank on the eye test...

4006 Views 101 Replies 19 Participants Last post by  Luf
Forgetting the traditional approach to ranking fighters, if we were rank guys purely on how they look on film, what would your top ten look like?
1 - 17 of 102 Posts
Hmm, it would maybe be something like (just off the top of my head and in no order):

Jones jr
Leonard (SRL)

That was so difficult to single it down because there are so many that impress me on film at their best. As I say though that was off the top of my head.
See less See more
This list but I ain't see enuff of Chang so would replace with Tommy Hearns.

If you have some spare time on your hands and are in a studious boxing mood at some point then Chang is worth watching scribbs, force of nature with massive skill.
It is difficult to single down and maybe the only way to begin splitting is based on quality of opponents beaten.
I'm more of the line of thinking that the focus is more on resume/quality of opposition beaten when ranking fighters by greatness and legacy whereas when it comes to a topic like this it's more so that the focus is purely on footage. Of course quality of defeated opponents is important but I don't think that's the overriding criteria on a thread like this one. Defo of importance though
I'm surprised no one has picked Floyd - to me he looks fantastic on film, his fight against JMM was unbelievable technically for me. I'll have a think about the others
That is maybe my favourite performance of his. Technically brilliant. It's not that I don't rate him or anything, it's just that I was constrained to only pick ten and boxing history just has too many.
what I meant was say two guys look brilliant on film but one guy looks brilliant against better opposition, he's the one I'd rank higher. You feel me?
I get what you're saying luf, as I say quality of opposition is defo important here. I thought I read your post as saying its maybe the only way to assess them but I just read back and saw that your post said its maybe the only way to split them, so I don't disagree with that. I do think though that when dealing with who is the best on the eyes we're probably dealing with too many separate skills on display etc for it to really come to that. But yeah I see what you're saying, potentially if two guys were putting on more or less identical displays but one guy was doing it against a world class fighter whereas the other was doin it to a journeyman then yeah my nod would go to the former.
The thing abiut skills is interesting because you have aesthetically pleasing guys who look untouchable like Jones, then you have brutally efficient guys like Rocky. Who's to say the former is a "better" fighter?

Tough call for me because finding a way to win is a skill itself.
Exactly, and very good point on your last sentence. It all comes down to effectiveness ultimately. :good

I guess that puts guys like Monzon in a better position than they have been thus far in this thread
Well I think Monzon looks great on film, I don't just mean that to sound all high and mighty, he looks great to me if not for anything else but his performances which display his domination. On Louis, he just looks amazing flat out IMO. Probably the greatest finisher of all time in any weight division.
Yes, I´m looking biased saying this but I never was as impressed watching Jones as most people....don´t get me wrong, he was awesome, but many of his performances were not great....I think Jones was inaccurate with his punches more than people like to think, he didn´t land that much most of the time.....that´s something that always prevented me to put him as one of the greatest on film like people like Jofre or SRL for instance......
If I make a top 10 Jones probably is on the list though...
It's mad because technically he's probably one of the worst boxers to become an ATG ever but that really is why the superman moniker was so appropriate for me because this was a guy who really wasn't technically sound at all but could do some tremendous things in the ring. It's also crazy how regardless of him being technically relatively poor he was still a great ring general who dominated the ring. His physical attributes made for amazing viewing for me.
In the first Jofre fight with Harada there's that period of the fight around round 11 possibly if my memory is right where Harada is lacing him badly and then Jofre comes back with a combination of punches which is one of the most beautiful displays of accurate punching I've seen on film
As I've said on the other site (in no particular order, just as they come to me)


Conteh at times but wasn't consistent enough in his application. SOOOOOOOOOOO (yes I just did that) many fighters but these ten are the first that spring to mind, until I remember some shocking omissions and change it up.

Joe Louis remains the greatest puncher of all time, with Arguello a close second, but they had functional feet rather than being able to diversify their application with them. Nothing wrong with that of course. Still, I've plumped for Louis>Tyson, and Arguello loses out for the first Vilomar fight and the Ramirez fight, which showed the blueprint on how to beat him (first six rounds of Chacon as well)
On punchers I just want to add Olivares too but you already guessed that :lol:
luf, Wilfredo Gomez must be one of the most skilled technicians on film, a complete fighter.

Glad Marc Johnson got a shout out too, what a fighter
R Leonard
B Leonard
M Johnson

I reckon that's my top 25.

Not ordered them yet.
My mind's blank and I'm hungover, I'll probably feel like a tit for asking this but who is M Johnson?
Ah Marc Johnson

I thought you meant Marvin Johnson! I was gunna say where the hell is Mike Spinks then? :lol:
Gomez has to be in there. I'm taking Fenech out, and taking Bazooka over both he and Chavez.

Too Sharp should not feature on these kinda' lists. His incredible skills were usual displayed against woeful opposition.
He displayed great skills against opposition who were not woeful also though. I never said Johnson should feature on these types of lists by the way. So it a misnomer. I think he was a great fighter by the way and if someone were to put him or Yoko Gushiken in based on the eye test then I have no problem with it because all the eye test is is ultimately opinion and preference.

Words like woeful and crap are used far too much and out of context in the hardest game IMO.
Subjective, yes, but I would implore everyone to have higher standards and take the quality of opponent into account when judging a fighters abilities.

Gushiken also fought woeful opposition In comparison to the best looking stylists who proved their skillset against better oppo'

I don't known man, I don't adhere to this 'don't criticise boxers with derogatory terms it's a hard job' mentality either. So I will continue bracketing fighters as such if they are sub-par. Which a lot of Johnson's oppo' was.

Who is the best opponent Too Sharp looked brilliant against? BTW, I wasn't replying to you originally anyway but if he did prove it, who was the best he proved it against?
I thought he looked pretty brilliant against Fernando Montiel.

I'm not telling you to not criticise boxers because its a hard job.

You don't need to implore anyone to have higher standards, especially not me, I've already cleared up my stance on resume and footage, in this thread actually.

Gushiken not having a great résumé is exactly what I'm saying. My point is that regardless of that point I would not stand in somebody's way if they decide to put him high on their list based on the eye test because if their opinion is that he looked so good as to override the deficiency in greatness in regards to his level of opposition then I'm not going to act like I have a high ground to say he doesn't belong on that person's list. This is the eye test. As I said I've already cleared up my point on level of opposition and I clearly said it is important here.
@Teeto I wasn't really talking about you anyway, even tofu I'd replied to ya'.

And yeah, he looked good against Montiel but fell of towards the end which makes it a flawed showing, hence I wouldn't put it on that level, even though Too Sharp was past prime and higher in weight.

But that would've been my choice too. Essentially, against his best opponents he didn't look that good.

But yeah, basically the above was a aeries of rhetorical questions really, we're on the same wavelength here really.
Ok sorry about that :good

I think that's a fine win tbf, true the performance wasn't as great in the latter stages but for me it doesn't diminish the showing overall considering I thought he looke pretty brilliant throughout the majority of it. Past prime too as you say.
Summed up Montiel's deficiencies also. All things considered, there are many better wins against better fighters on film around this weight, which is why Too Sharp wouldn't get a look in for me. :good
I wouldn't put him in ultimately either, just because of the competition in trying to compile a list like this. With the likes if Duran etc dominatin my mind I'm not gunna be able to fit Too Sharp in either
1 - 17 of 102 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.