Steve Lott not a Mike Gibbons fan

That's just an example of a year. You can still make out punches, methods, styles, bad film is no excuse for this most of the time. If i am watching frames of a fight from this era, any era, where they're mostly rushing, mauling and throwing one-armed punches while in a clinch; irrespective of the film's quality, the specific period of action didn't really result on one fighter moving around the ring sticking out a triple jab and landing sustained combinations. We can often make out what's happening, regardless of the film's speed and quality. Of course, motion picture was in its infancy- so were the Queensberry Rules. Both would improve massively.

 

I see a variety of styles, then and now.

 

It was not in its infancy. The style and pace changed to suit the length of fights, bigger gloves and the types of training that came later.

The early gloved fighters were trained by men who fought without gloves, they were no less skilled they just fought a different way. They were more economical with two fisted attacks because they did not want to smash their hands up. They knew what they were doing though. Parry, feint, lead and draw, arm pull turns and clever counter punching is still effective. Nothing wasted.

This notion that any modern fighter creams all the old fencing type prize fighters with speedy punching and nimble footwork is utter crap. The modern fighter cannot afford to miss as often as today and will certainly walk onto a Haymaker unless he slows down and meets the other man at his pace. All that sparring for openings slows things down.

 

It was as a global entity in world title fights are we came to know them.

They were clearly far less skilled; they improved on their fighting methods because they realised many weaknesses- this is just logical prgression. These guys were tough as ****, no doubts there, but there's not much great skill on show. As Jacobs himself said many of these early bouts were a mixture of a fight and a pie-eating contest.

The early filmed bouts seem like these fights were judged on aggressive feinting and effective clinching. If most of these fights, appeared today, they'd be booed out of the ring. These early fights have far more in common with two Irish gypsies going at it in a leisure centre car park then a modern day 12-round boxing match. :yep

Most of them clearly would, but keep believing every other sport has evolved but not boxing; keep believing that no one would take what they've learnt and seen and try to make it better- whatever turns you on. Fighters started to come into the pros after a solid amateur career and had superior boxing skills and movement. It's a boxing contest, not a fight in a pub on a Friday after pay day. It looks like a completely different sport today, thanks ****.

 

Joe Gans, Freddie Welsh, Packey McFarland, Jim Driscoll, Battling Nelson, Jimmy Britt etc. .... don't resemble anything like "two Irish gypsies going at it in a leisure centre car park" to me.

 

Jacobs also stated that Jack Johnson would not make through the first round of an amateur tournament today. If anyone believes that They have no idea what they are talking about. Just as today skill level varies as one looks back through the years...some were fantastic technical fighters....Johnson, Langford among others while some were less skilled. The old timers were experts in the finer points of boxing aspects that have been lost over the decades. No hwt fighter today exhibits the skills of a Tunney, Johnson, Dempsey....night and day.

 

Jacobs no matter how well trained no matter how good an athlete would not have gotten out of the first round vs Moore. Surprised that a great trainer such as Cus would even think an idea like this would be possible. Cus had an ego as great as his training abilities.

 

I've hardly ever heard anyone on this board defer to Jacobs as an expert on boxing technique ?
In fact, even as a 'boxing historian' Jacobs gets blasted for all the inaccuracies he states in his commentaries.

Cus D'Amato was a nut. He was crazy on a good day, possibly a side effect of him being a genius. If he ever thought Jacobs could win the light-heavy title from Moore in his first fight, it must have been on one of his bad days.

Another thing about Cus, for all the talk about the superiority of his "system" or "style" of fighting it's often overlooked that Cus believed in developing an EXCITING, CROWD-DRAWING STYLE rather than simply the perfect winning style.
He understood the need to score exciting KOs, draw crowds, and therefore make the big money.

 

Boxing existed for hundreds of years before film. Who are we to say they did not know what they were doing for all of that time?

Boxing is combat. It is not like other sports. Progress is never automatic. Competition makes great fights and great fights make great fighters. That's why a great fighter is special regardless of when he fought. It's the competition that makes them great not what year they were born.

Developing newer styles through study only makes a great fighter if there is competitive fights to be had otherwise shadow boxing jimmy Jacobs would have been world champion.

 

This is absolutely right. Frankly, if more trainers had this mind set the sport would be in better shape, at least from the fans standpoint.

 

Floyd was described decades ago as the first of the telegenic champions, somebody molded specifically for looking good on early television. Certainly, there were many who preceded him who looked good on film, but he took up boxing and came of age as television became ascendent in American culture, and Cus cultivated him in a way which looked good on the visual broadcasting technology of the era.

 

O'Dowd looks better than Gibbons to me.

Regarding, low hands, it is a defensive risk and can be punished by the right boxer. Look at the Ingle fighters loses or Carl Froch being schooled by Ward or Vitali getting ripped to shreds by Lennox as examples or Roy Jones past prime or Judah getting smashed by Tyszu as examples.

 

Yeah, but all those guys were pretty good.

It all depends on the fighter. Floyd Patterson's peek-a-boo defense left a lot to be desired too.
I'm no trainer but I'd say most fighters SHOULD keep their hands up, but I'd also say any fighter who thinks simply keeping the hands high will serve as an adequate defense ... is bound to get knocked out.

A lot depends on the individual. Most professionals who keep the left low, for example, I believe do so because they find it easier to land powerful and accurate jabs from that position.

 

All I know is that Jimmy Clabby boxes with his hands low in the film I have. However he knows just how to get them up in time and where to place them. Hes one of the most modern looking fighters from the old days and would be as good as anyone today. He and Gibbons had some great fights and Mike had a lot of praise for him. The idea that because these guys fought in a different style they were somehow worse doesnt jive in my opinion. Look at Ricardo Mayorga. He fought in a very old fashioned style and beat one of the slickest boxers of the last decade or so in Vernon Forrest (twice) and I also thought he beat Spinks.

 

Vitali Klitschko often fights "primitive" style, literally. ie. like a caveman.
It's like watching a old monster movie, Boris Karloff or something.
Vitali's last fight I think he must have been taking tips from Jess Willard.