How do you think this fight goes? Foster is coming off a big win and Zepeda gave Roach a very tough night. Zepeda will have a lot of output, an he's a better boxer than Navarrete. However, although there is a lot of Foster glaze going on now, perhaps it's justified. How well do you think the Navarrete win will age? Foster surprised me and I think will give Zepeda a tough fight. I actually think Foster could win given how well he did versus a come forward mexican boxers with volume. Its like a harder version of Navarrete.

Straight from my 25TB boxing vault.

EP1 - Martínez vs. Williams II (2010) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x3ht2m

EP2 - Pacquiao vs. Hatton (2009) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x5mwh2

EP3 - Darchinyan vs. Donaire I (2007) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x6kxj6

EP4 - Peter vs. Williams (2004) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x86k7r

EP5 - Lee vs. Jackson (2014) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x9tmdm

EP6 - Rothmann vs. Thompson (2004) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1xapvrj

EP7 - Santa Cruz vs. Davis (2020) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1xbmrls

EP8 - Lewis vs. Rahman I (2001) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1xdaw2q

Been looking over old before and after threads. There's the usual before fight predictions and after fight controversy. I'm just curious as to what boxing fans simply thought of Rico's actual performance throughout the whole fight was though? Did he surprise you with his skill? Was it mostly his size and pressure that was a factor? Did Usyk clearly take him lightly and should have done better against a limited fighter? Was it just a great match up between two talented warriors? Just curious your opinion of the pure action you saw for 11 rounds.

Classic match up between a technical boxer puncher and hard hitting pressure fighter, Brook is the more polished fighter here in terms of skill set, but Ortiz can cut the ring off and is a good body puncher, would be a great fight for sure if it ever happened

Give me your opinions on who was the best in terms of athleticism/conditioning, technical skill and peak performance and the greatest in terms of long term impact, career achievements and historical legacy. So basically two categories for each term.

Meaning these guys were at best average (but, especially those below-average) in things like:

speed

agility/fluidity

flexibility

explosiveness

coordination

The person doesn’t have to be average/below-average in ALL of them. Like a guy could have good fluidity and good hand/eye/feet coordination, but just be .

As weird as it sounds, could Canelo fit this definition, given his slow “quick sand“ (as Oscar Dela Hoya calls them) feet?

Was Sergio Martinez one of them? George Foreman?

For anything that doesn't need its own thread.