The actual skill level of Jim Braddock

Lol!

 

It has been suggested by some of Baer's contemporaries, including Braddock himself, that he used clowning to paper over cracks in his game.

If he was running out of gas he would clown around a bit, and that would intimidate his opponent, who had been on the wrong end of the beating a few seconds ago.

Now if that is true, then if he found himself in a fight against a ranked contender, and unable to defend himself effectively, then he would probably have fallen back on this tactic.

If Braddock had known that Baer's right was not good for much, then he would have adjusted his tactics accordingly.

If he knew that neither hand was good for much, then he probably goes in for the kill!

 

I don't see the claim you are referencing. Mind showing it to me?
Or did you make it up?

 

There's no narrative. I highlighted his impressive moments. It is left open ended for interpretations. I drew no conclusions for the audience.

A false narrative would be editing all of Braddocks best moments in a specific fight, and calling them the entire highlights of for that fight, for instance. You have a very basic understanding of what it is I do. Which doesn't surprise me, since all the content you've created is pure garbage.

Youre pissed because I made a video called "The Skills of Jim Braddock," which highlights the skills he displayed throughout his fights. Of course he had skills worth showing, he was a boxing champion. Anyone who thinks he had no skills is a moron.

Your videos are pure trash. Which you've created to propel your dumb narratives. They aren't aimed to help boxers, or to serve boxing fans. They're not created in name of truth or accuracy either. They're created to serve only yourself, and to present yourself as some gatekeeper of hidden knowledge. It's all self serving, which is why nobody likes it, or gravitates towards it. It's selfish, inaccurate, and egotistical.

Your beef is with the concept of highlights, no what I do. Would it be deceptive if they had in-between rounds highlights back in those days showing Jimmy landing combos? Thats essentially what I'm doing, but for his career. Don't get salty. Try writing another book, you sound bored and bitter.

 

Sure. Give me a little while to dig through your posts.

In the meantime, I'd be glad to give you a preview of what I will probably say:

You've replied to criticisms of your boxing judgment in the past by pointing to your impressive Youtube success. I believe it was in one of the Primo threads. In one of these conversations, you also pointed out that mrkoolkevin or PatM -- don't remember which, but it was one of 'em -- couldn't make Youtube videos of high quality. And now you've criticized Klompton's unsuccessful Youtube videos as well. One of your criticisms was that the Youtube commentariat rated them poorly.

There's an implicit claim in all of this: That poor Youtube reception says something about the quality of the film analyst's judgment. Otherwise, why raise the issue in a thread about boxing skills? Why raise it when challenged specifically on the quality of your own judgment versus Klompton's?

Unless it's just part of the trash talk each side is throwing, I guess.

Make it up? Sounds pretty nefarious of me. I think you're confusing me with Bizarro Universe Cross_Trainer.

Maybe Youtube reception DOES say something about the analyst's knowledge. That's why I was curious. That's why I asked you. I even went out of my way to ask as politely and non-confrontationally as possible because I was intrigued by the idea and wanted to know what you thought.

 

Thing is though, even if it was written, it doesn't seem to be enforced. I can't think of seeing any knockdowns from that era or before where they actually were actually made to go to the neutral corner.

If no one else was enforcing or following it, you can hardly complain about him not following it either.

 

You also formed a very specific and dubious claim which I never made.

Of course likes on a video doesn't directly conclude the quality of analysis.
But in many cases, there is a rather strong correlation.


And yes, in order to make the kinds of videos I make, you have to know what you're looking at.
If you don't you wouldn't get the appraisals from the boxing community, including amateur fighters, pro fighters, writers, trainers, and fans that my work gets.

If you (not you personally) think its as easy as putting a soundtrack over some landed punches and B roll, I invite you to try it yourself. That's what Mrkoolkevin thought, and to his credit he actually went through with it, and threw his hat into the race. And it was actually an okay video, but it gained little traction. Had he chosen which moments to highlight more thoughtfully, perhaps it would've turned out different. What you choose to include, and not to include comes from the creators understanding of the subject matter.

My very first video from my old channel was called "Legendary Knockouts," and that's what it showed, legendary knockouts. Had I chosen knockouts that weren't legendary, it probably wouldn't have gotten the 3k views it got in the first month with no marketing. If you call a video "legendary knockouts," you have to show legendary knockouts. If you call a video "The Skills of Jimmy Braddock," you have to show the skills of Jimmy Braddock. If you call your video "Jack Dempsey, the dirtiest champion in history," you have to show him being the dirtiest champion in history. I don't think he came close to that. Neither did most people who came across the video.

Yeah my work is tasteful.
But there are far more dry analyses out there that have reached equal to or better success than I. Lee Wylies videos don't have the same emotional style. But his analyses are pretty good, and his work got recognition for it.

 

You're right that I was too specific. In my defense, Youtube comments and likes were the things mentioned most often in this thread, and it's my impression that they are good metrics for Youtube popularity (along with views, subscribers, etc.)

Great! This is the claim I'm interested in.

Since you've been accommodating enough to argue the case below, let's get to it...

Are the appraisals from amateur fighters, pro fighters, writers, and trainers responsible for the majority of your traffic, though? (See below.)

Perhaps so. But is this a failure of boxing talent, or a failure of mrkoolkevin's skill at selecting music, editing film, choosing visually arresting scenes, and so on?

Chinese kung fu films are extremely visually appealing. They are also filled with impractical techniques that would get you flattened in a real fight. Yet the general public still enjoys them. The general public also enjoys watching toughman contests, Butterbean, one-sided beatdowns from early MMA history, Kimbo Slice, and all sorts of other violent but low-skill fights.

At the end of the day, I think we'd still need good reasons to believe that most of the Youtube community who watch your channel are connoisseurs of good boxing technique. Wouldn't we?

That's another interesting way to look at it. Again, I think it ultimately depends on whether the majority of your audience are (1) watching primarily because they're interested in boxing technique and (2) knowledgeable about boxing technique. What evidence would you put forward for your Youtube audience having these traits?

For example, let's take Klompton's video. You criticized it as seeming to show an arrogant attitude toward his audience. I also notice that it's much less entertaining than your videos. Could it be that these limitations are the main problems with the video -- not the quality of boxing technical analysis?

 

More mentioned than Jimmy Braddock? What do you mean? That is simply inaccurate.
And starting an argument with a bold claim that is so far from true just gives me a bad feeling about the accuracy of the rest of your argument.

I don't know the breakdown nor see the point as it relates to my work being vindicated by the practitioners of the craft. I would say the vast majority of my subscribers are super fans of the sport who have a strong likelihood in doing or having done boxing.

I think it boils down to being able to grasp significance.

A Chinese king fu movie has its purposes, and my videos has its own.
My subject matter isn't fictional.

Whether or not most of my viewers are boxing experts or not, it doesn't change the fact that boxing experts largely love my videos. The significance is that they do, not whether most of my views come from them or not.

Additionally, I'm constantly impressed with how informative many of my commenters are, although not always the case. Some of them know certain things you won't hear from anyone on this forum. And it widens your perception about the amount of people out there who really know their stuff who don't post on this forum (I know, insane).

I haven't surveyed my audience to know.
But I'll tell you what. Edit really good videos on really bad boxers, and see if you can replicate my results.
If the viewers don't know boxing, and can be fooled by good editing, you should have no problem.

No, it is the idea presented combined with the quality of the analysis.
Again watch Lee Wylies videos. Not much in terms of editing, but really good analyses.
Great reception by the boxing community.

 

Not evidence. Rather an appeal to common sense.
Boxing hasn't been boiled down to a science.
Two great trainers can have vastly different views on the same boxer.
So at the end of the day all we really have is our shared perception, and of course, results.
And if nobody agrees with your shitty videos (besides a few members of the non echo chamber that is ESB), then who exactly are you talking to?

By and large know what they're looking at?
Yeah maybe, but you're not one of them.
You, I believe till this day, think that Moorer took a dive against Foreman based off the footage of the KO. I absolutely pity your analytic interpretations.

This content is protected

​

People already have. Succinctly.

Right, I even composed the song myself to perfectly fit the length of all the good moments Braddock ever had into the video. Such a genius you are lol

Yeah, and then people saw it, and went "nope."

 

Well which fights was it enforced.

If it's just some strange coincidence that it wasn't in the fights I've seen, there should be plenty of counterexamples.

Off the top of my head
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Jack Johnson
Ketchell
Battling Nelson

Don't go to a corner.

Queensberry also bans grappling and hugging, and people also complain about that no being enforced, yet nearly every fighter will grapple or hug at points in fights.

 

More mentioned than any other metric.