ATGs who don't look impressive on film. - Page 7

Lord Tywin · 01-23-2013, 09:46 PM

I can see the criticism of Johnson. Im not a big fan of his style but I think he gives most anybody problems as well.

Guys like Johnson, who know how to slow down a fight and minimize action to their advantage are tough to beat. Like Hopkins. Different style but the same approach.

Seamus · 01-23-2013, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Tywin

Maybe but you also have to understand the limitations of his opposition.

Red, your answer reminds me of how some jazz snobs react when someone trashes their music. Have you ever seen that episode of the Simpson's where the daughter is at a jazz concert and a guy next to her is complaining "Sounds like she's hitting a baby with a cat." She answers "You have to listen to the notes she's not playing." The guy next to her answer's "I can do that at home."

That pretty much sums up how I feel about Monzon.

Such tripe... Benvenuti, Benvenuti, Napoles, Briscoe, Griffith, Griffith, Valdez, Valdez... a solid, solid line-up. Valdez would rule today. Even Licata wasn't a bad little fighter, beat Griffith, went on to beat Rossman, came into the fight with one loss in 50 something fights.

Monzon erased the division, mostly in a time of single belt. Undefeated over 84 bouts, 14 title defenses, again mostly in an era of a single belt.

Lord Tywin · 01-24-2013, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus

Such tripe... Benvenuti, Benvenuti, Napoles, Briscoe, Griffith, Griffith, Valdez, Valdez... a solid, solid line-up. Valdez would rule today. Even Licata wasn't a bad little fighter, beat Griffith, went on to beat Rossman, came into the fight with one loss in 50 something fights.

Monzon erased the division, mostly in a time of single belt. Undefeated over 84 bouts, 14 title defenses, again mostly in an era of a single belt.

Im not sure if thats tripe or you just have the blinders on but a lot of guys would have beaten that "solid lineup" (outside of Valdez) at middleweight. But to each his own.

Flea Man · 01-24-2013, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theron

I cant agree with that, Johnson was amazing for his time

If Constantly clinching and throwing the occasional right hand is 'amazing'.

Looks the pits on film when you consider he's fighting blokes much smaller for the best part.

Flea Man · 01-24-2013, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus

Such tripe... Benvenuti, Benvenuti, Napoles, Briscoe, Griffith, Griffith, Valdez, Valdez... a solid, solid line-up. Valdez would rule today. Even Licata wasn't a bad little fighter, beat Griffith, went on to beat Rossman, came into the fight with one loss in 50 something fights.

Monzon erased the division, mostly in a time of single belt. Undefeated over 84 bouts, 14 title defenses, again mostly in an era of a single belt.

I've never thought much of Valdez. Massive puncher obviously, but round snoozer and not all that. B level.

Bill1234 · 01-24-2013, 12:33 AM

Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, and Max Baer. A lot of times I see these guys favored against a lot of other ATG heavyweights and I just don't see it.

Jack Johnson has never impressed me and sometimes I think I'm watching something completely different than what others saw. He looked downright sloppy many times to me and seemed to be pretty crude considering he's considered as one of the best heavyweight ring technicians.

I can only imagine the criticism guys like Frazier, Lewis, Liston, Holmes, or any heavyweight ATG not named Dempsey, Louis, or Ali would get if they got decked by a middleweight and got up to swing incredibly sloppily and end up falling over from misbalance from throwing the punch.

People always mention how easily he beat his opposition, but honestly I think his opposition was piss poor looking on film, too and I think Dempsey, Louis, Frazier, Marciano, and litterally just about every heavyweight champ post Johnson would have walked all over the oponents too.

Jack Dempsey I find the most impressive out of those who don't really impress me on film. His tenacity is very evident and his quick headmovement coupled with his foot movement is good, but his technique is just down right awful most of the time and he telegraphed many of his punches.

I see many people favoring him over guys like Louis, Liston, Frazier, Marciano, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, and Klitschko and I just don't see it. He's another where I can only imagine the criticism others aside from Louis, Johnson, Ali and Dempsey would have gotten had they strugged so mightily with a person as unskilled as Firpo.

Max Baer looked the worst out of all of the "great" heavyweight to me. His technique made guys like 70s Foreman and Marcos Maidana look like text book, Joe Louis esque punchers technique wise. He didn't even try to hide his lack of technique and he often reverted to blatant fouling the included strong back hands to get at his oponents.

His raw power in his right hand was evident, but I see him losing to just about every heavyweight champ barring guys like Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, and Jess Willard.

Bill1234 · 01-24-2013, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flea Man

If Constantly clinching and throwing the occasional right hand is 'amazing'.

Looks the pits on film when you consider he's fighting blokes much smaller for the best part.

I agree completely.

Unforgiven · 01-24-2013, 02:36 AM

I was gonna say Jack Johnson too, but I remember he's actually pretty damn impressive when he opens up and lets his hands go !
It's easy to fall asleep before it gets to that bit though.

Johnstown · 01-24-2013, 04:26 AM

watching Jake LaMotta (not sure if one would consider him a all time great) but good he looks like she just walks straight in with no defense and slow punches. I know he was doing more than that but stilll.....someone like caremen basillio looks so much better.

MadcapMaxie · 01-24-2013, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lora

For the whole stiff standup thing failing to impress that seems hard for many to get past with Monzon and others, Gene Tunney is the worst looking i'd say.

I wouldn't say there are any ATG's i don't think look impressive at the end of the day, though.

Some like Saddler i don't enjoy watching fight.

I can understand regarding Gene Tunney, when I first started watching him I was thinking "....what the fuck...is this it?" and I'm sure to ye average person he'd look silly bounding around the ring like Skippy the Kangaroo. However after a while you pick up some brilliant subtleties, much like Monzon. The way Tunney can time and judge distance so perfectly is astounding, he can literally stand in front of his opponent hands next to his waist, chin in the air, let his opponent throw a punch take half a step back and then come in and counter.

Must've been a very frustrating guy to fight.

Unforgiven · 01-24-2013, 04:52 AM

Tunney looks pretty great to me, from start to finish.
His short hooks to the body, his footwork, everything. He's textbook.

Theron · 01-24-2013, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Tunney looks pretty great to me, from start to finish.
His short hooks to the body, his footwork, everything. He's textbook.

He was probably the best guy that was ''made'' not ''born'' a fighter, he made himself and did a pretty good job as well

anj · 01-24-2013, 07:22 AM

Hopkins does look impressive, he's just not entertaining

Brownies · 01-24-2013, 03:41 PM

George Foreman : I like the guy and don't question his power, but damn... Let's do an experiment, take a guy who's never watched Foreman and show him the Ali and Young fights in a row and they won't believe that this guy had an ATG career... and he sure did !

Rocky Marciano : I enjoy watching him fight nowadays, it helps that he boxed during my favorite era. However, it took a while to start enjoying the little things he did.

Wlad Klitschko : I think his long title reign should get him a good rank in many ATG's list. However, it seems the guy has two choice : be boring and win or be entertaining and get KOed. Also, history always have a softer spot for smaller fighters who overcame adversity. Klitschko is the opposite.

orriray59 · 01-24-2013, 04:43 PM

What the fuck is so amazing about Jack Johnson, anyway? Fought people ridiculously smaller than him, and if they weren't, were shot as fuck.
Maybe not his fault that men like Burns were small, but he straight ducked some fighters. When he opened up, he was sloppy, winging these wide hay-makers like nobody's business.

Spent most of the fight clinching, too. Just a generally unimpressive boxer on film.

01-23-2013, 09:46 PM	#91
Lord Tywin Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 759 vCash: 500	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. I can see the criticism of Johnson. Im not a big fan of his style but I think he gives most anybody problems as well. Guys like Johnson, who know how to slow down a fight and minimize action to their advantage are tough to beat. Like Hopkins. Different style but the same approach.
Top

01-24-2013, 12:33 AM	#96
Bill1234 Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,621 vCash: 1000	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, and Max Baer. A lot of times I see these guys favored against a lot of other ATG heavyweights and I just don't see it. Jack Johnson has never impressed me and sometimes I think I'm watching something completely different than what others saw. He looked downright sloppy many times to me and seemed to be pretty crude considering he's considered as one of the best heavyweight ring technicians. I can only imagine the criticism guys like Frazier, Lewis, Liston, Holmes, or any heavyweight ATG not named Dempsey, Louis, or Ali would get if they got decked by a middleweight and got up to swing incredibly sloppily and end up falling over from misbalance from throwing the punch. People always mention how easily he beat his opposition, but honestly I think his opposition was piss poor looking on film, too and I think Dempsey, Louis, Frazier, Marciano, and litterally just about every heavyweight champ post Johnson would have walked all over the oponents too. Jack Dempsey I find the most impressive out of those who don't really impress me on film. His tenacity is very evident and his quick headmovement coupled with his foot movement is good, but his technique is just down right awful most of the time and he telegraphed many of his punches. I see many people favoring him over guys like Louis, Liston, Frazier, Marciano, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, and Klitschko and I just don't see it. He's another where I can only imagine the criticism others aside from Louis, Johnson, Ali and Dempsey would have gotten had they strugged so mightily with a person as unskilled as Firpo. Max Baer looked the worst out of all of the "great" heavyweight to me. His technique made guys like 70s Foreman and Marcos Maidana look like text book, Joe Louis esque punchers technique wise. He didn't even try to hide his lack of technique and he often reverted to blatant fouling the included strong back hands to get at his oponents. His raw power in his right hand was evident, but I see him losing to just about every heavyweight champ barring guys like Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, and Jess Willard.
Top

01-24-2013, 02:36 AM	#98
Unforgiven Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 13,141 vCash: 1000	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. I was gonna say Jack Johnson too, but I remember he's actually pretty damn impressive when he opens up and lets his hands go ! It's easy to fall asleep before it gets to that bit though.
Top

01-24-2013, 04:26 AM	#99
Johnstown No Longer Nefarious East Side VIP Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Johnstown PA Posts: 11,823 vCash: 500	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. watching Jake LaMotta (not sure if one would consider him a all time great) but good he looks like she just walks straight in with no defense and slow punches. I know he was doing more than that but stilll.....someone like caremen basillio looks so much better.
Top

01-24-2013, 04:52 AM	#101
Unforgiven Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 13,141 vCash: 1000	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. Tunney looks pretty great to me, from start to finish. His short hooks to the body, his footwork, everything. He's textbook.
Top

01-24-2013, 07:22 AM	#103
anj Fuck The Judges ESB Addict Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Durham/Essex, England Posts: 2,005 vCash: 300	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. Hopkins does look impressive, he's just not entertaining
Top

01-24-2013, 03:41 PM	#104
Brownies Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,398 vCash: 500	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. George Foreman : I like the guy and don't question his power, but damn... Let's do an experiment, take a guy who's never watched Foreman and show him the Ali and Young fights in a row and they won't believe that this guy had an ATG career... and he sure did ! Rocky Marciano : I enjoy watching him fight nowadays, it helps that he boxed during my favorite era. However, it took a while to start enjoying the little things he did. Wlad Klitschko : I think his long title reign should get him a good rank in many ATG's list. However, it seems the guy has two choice : be boring and win or be entertaining and get KOed. Also, history always have a softer spot for smaller fighters who overcame adversity. Klitschko is the opposite.
Top

01-24-2013, 04:43 PM	#105
orriray59 weird East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: The Green Isle Posts: 13,226 vCash: 82	Re: ATGs who don't look impressive on film. What the fuck is so amazing about Jack Johnson, anyway? Fought people ridiculously smaller than him, and if they weren't, were shot as fuck. Maybe not his fault that men like Burns were small, but he straight ducked some fighters. When he opened up, he was sloppy, winging these wide hay-makers like nobody's business. Spent most of the fight clinching, too. Just a generally unimpressive boxer on film.
Top