Guys, I wanted to make this post because I noticed there are some disingenuous people out there who do their best to destroy the legacies of past boxers. They do their best to take away the hard earned accomplishments of these great warriors. These people focus on their flaws, and find snippets of their worst moments, and overblow it. So I created a small list of clips of boxers who are unanimously considered as great, or good, by contemporary standards, that shows some of their bad moments. I did this to show you how easy it is to deceive people when media tools are in the hands of disingenuous people. This reference serves as a warning to not get swayed by these slimy tactics. Here is George Foreman and Ron Lyle slugging it out. Notice the lack of straight punching, poor defense, and little to no footwork. https://streamable.com/ltsk Next, lets look at Oscar Bonavena vs. George Chuvalo. Notice the toe-to-toe wide swinging brawling, and sloppy footwork. https://streamable.com/uacd And here is Evander Holyfield. Watch as he picks Lewis up like a wrestler. Then watch as he lifts his knee to try to block punches. Is lifting your knee to block punches something that good boxers do? Furthermore, watch as he lunges with a sloppy hook, and basically stands still in front of Lewis barrage of punches. https://streamable.com/eu0l As painful as it was to seek out the worst in some great boxers, I had to do it to prove a point. World class boxers dont need to fit a certain mold. Many of them are unorthodox, but using that as a criticism against them is to ignore the entire objective of the sport, which is to win. So be warned not to fall for these hit jobs on classic boxers.
Yes, absolutely. One can find bad moments in fights of every ATG boxer. But should he? All people make mistakes, and even the greatest professionals have some flaws.
Show me a bad Galento punch, and I'll show you something equally bad from contemporary sluggers. Do you have a specific example? Like can you show me one Galento punch you are describing? This is good. We are getting into very nitty gritty specifics, and I think we can learn a lot from digging deeper here.
Provide examples of the so called older fighters arm punching, off balance, wrong foot first, and chin high.
Great post Rez. What these haters fail to realize is that the old school fighters fought the toughest and best fighters of their eras. They didn't defend titles against guys who are ranked 50 or 100. They fought guys ranked number 1.
Adam had a great post a while back about the development of boxing. While admitting it had developed, he reminded us that it was still hitting and avoiding being hit, an age old human occupation (uniquely human is the use of the fist to the face according the forensic anthropologists)... Sometimes the most classy fight comes down to a brawl.
Well,you know my opinion about galento.and specially fighting with baer looked a brawler pig in a bar.not even close to foreman -lyle.galento was a garbage boxer and baer was the perfect definitión of crude.bonavena would give galento a boxing lesson and the beating of his life
By any chance do you have a link to this post? These are my exact thoughts on the evolution of boxing over the last century. You summed it up very well.
Thank you for helping me put pressure on these guys who make outlandish claims, and then shy away from an opportunity to prove them. I think John Galt is the same guy who said Corbett had his chin high in the Courtney footage. And then we quickly proved it was no higher than Floyd Mayweathers. These guys rarely hone up to such blatant oversights. And it's not some harmless incident. There are people here who want to learn a lot about boxing history, and when you're new, it can be hard to distinguish between good information, and bad.
I agree, Rez. Foreman gets loads of praise for his power, but he was incredibly sloppy at times in his prime. I remember reading an old Ring magazine and someone referred to Foreman and Lyle as "a pair of dock wallopers"! Carl Froch threw arm punches and could be really wild, but he was very effective. The same applies to Chris Eubank. Actually, Froch reminds me a lot of Baer. What about Calzaghe cuffing or slapping? There are loads of examples.
Posting a series of good sequences of Baer, Galento, etc. would do more to prove what you want. Posting vids of guys like that little known tall heavyweight from the 30s (not Carnera, that other guy from a few weeks back) is like passing off dog sh it and telling us it's steak. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some of these guys are used to these new so called "superior" fighters knocking over tomato cans they don't know what two elite fighters putting it all on the line looks like. I've learned so much on this forum. Part because there are some good knowledgeable people on here and other part having to strengthen my argument.
I honestly wish this didn't happen here. There's a time and place to look at a boxers flaws, such as when you're comparing and contrasting, or sizing up a fantasy fight. But when you go out of your way to create hit piece threads by posting 10 second clips of someones worst moments, then you're doing something wrong. There is so much to still discover about boxing history. There's footage to uncover, and restore. There are interviews and testimonials to still be found, and pieced together. There is this huge opportunity missed to have a really intelligent, ****ytical study on different techniques of different eras, using footage to piece the puzzle together, without the hindrance of emotional bias. What we do in most of these threads is just scratching the surface. When I came back to this site about a year ago, somehow I expected that to happen here. Maybe because I have so much respect for this forum. There are people here with an incredible depth of knowledge and experience in boxing. And instead, I quickly got dragged into this unimportant battle of having to plainly defend the merits of old school boxers. Burt Bienstock can't even get 2 words out before people are yelling at him to be quiet. And that man has some ****ing important stories to tell. He lived the culture around the 30's, 40's, and 50's boxers. He's an absolute goldmine of information, and people won't let us extract it, because we keep having to fight this most basic of battles. /rant over!
I know I'm not Seamus but, that post by Adam is one of my favorite on here: "Boxing skill evolving is all nonsense. Jabs, hooks, body shots, uppercuts etc. have existed all along, as well as blocking, ducking, clinching, moving, etc. Guys hit other guys on the jaw and body and knocked them out then, and do so now. Guys made other guys' punches miss then, and do so now. You don't go 20 rounds over and over again and not get knocked out and not know something about the art of self defense. And you don't knock out so many guys without knowing how to punch. They wanted to do both back then as much as they do today. You really think trainers or boxers in the gym now are some geniuses who have the secret formula or knowledge they didn't have back then? Kids come into the gym and learn the basics of punching and defense from folks who have done it or seen others do it. Same thing back then. Some are better and some are worse, both as teachers and as pupils. And there are tons of styles and ways to do things - some make it work, and some don't. Ali's lean back was criticized by many in the 60s, but guys like Corbett and Johnson did that way back when. Stick and move and clinch was done by guys like Corbett and Jack O'Brien and Johnson even before Ali used that stuff to frustrate guys like Liston. Nothing new. That Bernard Hopkins stuff - move, fire, smother, charge in, feint, duck, slide back - they did that back then too. Watch Joe Gans sometime for some in range boxing skill. They all had their own unique way of doing it, but if it works, it works, and it works in any era." apollack. The full post is at this link: http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=393621&page=3