I am sorry but bull****! You are arguing that a man who carried his hands by his waist, was more technically sound than the best technicians of the 1920s and 30s! If this is the case, then there is no such thing as a technically unsound fighter! You are coming across as being one of those supporters of modern fighters, who picks up on minor technical flaws in old timers, while excusing the most fundamental flaws in modern fighters! Wilder is successful today based on power, speed and reflexes. surely this is a fairly compelling argument that fighters have not necessarily got better over time?
Firstly, that's not true. Froch didn't fight with his hands by his waist. His right hand was kept high, not glued to his chin but also not at his waist. I've seen him use his right hand to parry and catch jabs. He uses the low lead to jab and counter. "You have guys like Carl Froch, who have thrown the entire rule book out of the window, and still unified multiple belts." Can you back up this statement? "the entire rule book". Froch has a fundamentally sound boxing stance. He fights with his chin down. Froch actually had a really good jab. His jab to the body was textbook, very hard to counter. I never liked the fact that he fought with his hands low. But he had good upper-body movement, he knew how to parry punches and how to roll with them. He had decent footwork, had good balance even though he swung like a maniac at times. His punches were textbook, especially his right hand. He had one terrible move, that was his rear uppercut he threw from outside. Very easy to counter. He wasn't a completely flawed fighter. He was just awkward. You'll never see Froch moving forward with both his hands at his hips. That's what I saw Sharkey do. And Froch used a narrow stance compared to Sharkey who was more squared and a wider target. Froch was technically unsound (not entirely) for today's standards. Did anyone call Froch a technically sound fighter? Never heard anyone say it. He was known for being awkward. I didn't say Froch was technically sound. I used the word "more". More technically sound than 20s fighters. Some of today's technically sound fighters: Mickey Garcia, Gennady Golovkin, Canelo Alvarez, Lomachanko, Rignodeaux, Usyk etc. You wanna compare these fighters to the best of 1920s/30s? I don't support fighters based on era. That's the difference between you and I. I think Harry Greb was the greatest fighter that ever lived. I don't care whether he was technically sound or not. There's no footage of him anyways. And I don't judge fighters ability through news articles. But I have never seen a resume like his. He must have been a great fighter to beat the men he beat. I judge eras separately. Head to head ability isn't very important to me because I believe fighters have gotten better over time. I never said fighters are constantly improving. There's always a plateau. I think boxing peaked in the 70s and 80s. We had better s&c training than before, we knew more about diet/nutrition, resting (an overlooked aspect), great amateur circuit and still a vast talent pool. Boxing didn't improve much after that period. We saw some fighters like Floyd, Manny, RJJ, Hopkins etc. but that doesn't mean boxing improved as a whole. But there's no way anyone can convince me that fighters from 1920s were as good as fighters today. It's not even close. What are these "most fundamental flaws"? Can you list these fundamental flaws? I'm here comparing Dominic Breazeale to hall of famers like Jack Sharkey and Max Baer. Breazeale isn't even top 10 today. Imagine if I compared Sharkey to someone like Anthony Joshua? That's not what I asked. Does Wilder not stand out today? He's known for being technically unsound. Did people back in the day consider Max Baer or Jack Sharkey technically unsound? I'm genuinely curious. Because almost everyone today can see Wilder's flaws. If there was no such thing as being technically unsound, how does Wilder stand out today? I know why he's successful. I don't need help with that part. I wanna know why people don't consider him a technical fighter? That means there must be some technical fighters he's being compared to. How is Joshua a better fighter than Wilder? People say AJ is more technically sound. Be honest, who is the better fighter between the two? And why? You think Wilder is proof that fighters haven't gotten better over time? Lmao. Out of all the champions today, Wilder is the worst boxer. That's your argument? A 6'7 slugger who is only known for his right hand. A fighter who gets sh-it on for poor technique and lack of fundamentals. How do you explain fighters like Lomachenko, Rigondeaux, Golovkin, Canelo? Isn't that a fairly compelling argument that fighters have gotten better over time? You're pointing to fighters who aren't known for being technical. "look, these guys aren't all that technical, if they can do it, so could Sharkey". That's not a great argument. I can see major fundamental flaws in almost every elite fighter from 1920s. And some of these fighters were known as "technicians". You're picking modern fighters that NO ONE ever called technically sound. And yet they are still significantly better than the fighters of 1920s. There will always be unorthodox fighters, in every era. It doesn't mean those fighters represent that era. Froch was just another fighter in his era. He was known for his toughness and his awkwardness. He was still a very good fighter but not the most technical. Compare him to Andre Ward. Same era, same weight class. You can see who was more technically sound. Compare him to Mikkel Kessler. Kessler was a better fighter. Same era, same weight class. Jermain Taylor was more technically sound than Froch. We've had overachievers in every era. The fighters that aren't the most skilled but make up for it with heart and determination. Froch was one of them. He's also one of those fighters who can win a fight they're losing because of punching power. He did it against Taylor and twice against Groves. We don't have to argue if you don't want to. I didn't start this sh-it. You called me out on my pick, I didn't bother you. You're the one who wanted to compare film. I did my part, you didn't. You're just going in circles without making a valid point. I said that Breazeale was more technically sound that the other 3. I might be wrong but I won't know it if I don't see it.
The bottom line is that if Froch was some fighter from the 1930s, you would heap pales of manure over him for his technical shortcomings, and cite them as evidence that the sport had improved since then. The 1930s fighter is "flawed" because of his technical shortcomings, but the modern fighter is merely "awkward!" You are really not selling me on this at the moment. We are comparing Breazle to them, because you seem to think that he would have a good chance against them. Sharkey is a much more complete fighter than Anthony Joshua, or any other super heavyweight. Baer was viewed much as we view Wilder today, but Sharkey was viewed as being a very good technician. At the moment I would say that Joshua is better than Wilder, because his defense is tighter, and he is getting better results. Obviously if Wilder can beat him, I would have to reassess my position on this. He is proof that a non entity like Breazle, is unlikely to beat the best of another era, even if there had been some subtle advance in technique since that era. You have done half of your part. You have taken a negative view of the footage of Sharkey, which you can do with any fighter. Even the best fighters won't take a punch in order top maintain perfect fundamentals. Now you need to find some footage of Breazle to showcase his technical superiority.
Is he not awkward lol? I said he isn't technically sound, like 4 different times. Let's compare Froch to Mickey Walker. Let's see who's more technically sound. Walker is an all-time great welterweight and middleweight. Froch is hardly great. Walker must be better than Froch. I would if I said Shakey beats Wladimir lmao. I got no one to please. I say it how it is. You clearly got a bias for older fighters. I don't really care but when you make a statement, you back it up. That's what I'm doing. That's what you aren't doing. I do. I've given my reasons. You keep avoiding the real argument. It was supposed to be "who looks better on film- Sharkey or Breazeale". Did you watch Breazeale vs AJ? That's the fight where Breazeale lost every round. I can't make it any easier for you. Any other super heavyweight lmao. You're actually delusional. So he's better than Wladimir, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe as well. Ok. I can do the same thing. I can say Joshua is a more complete fighter than Sharkey. All you do is make statements and never back them up. Joshua is a much better fighter than Sharkey ever was. He isn't as great as Sharkey but head to head, far superior technician. It isn't even close. A very good technician you say. Does he look like a very good technician to you when you watch his fights? If Sharkey was fighting today, would he still be considered a very good technician? You're either holding back or you haven't seen much of either fighter. Joshua is a way better boxer than Wilder. He's better than Wilder at almost everything. You wouldn't have to. You can watch two different fighters and see who's better without a head to head battle. The same way you concluded that Sharkey was a "much more complete" fighter than Joshua. How did you get to that? I actually wanna hear your response to this one. Wilder would run through everyone in the 20s lol. It's negative because you don't like it. I literally gave you the timestamps for every error in that round. If it's negative, all you have to do is provide a counter-argument which would refute my analysis of the fight. The problem isn't that Sharkey is leaning back from punches, it's the fact that he's leaning back with his hands at his waist. It could easily be a straight right instead of a right hook. What then? Him falling over when he jabs is a major fundamental error. That's something you wouldn't even see in amateur boxing. I only pointed to the technical errors I found. Isn't that what I was supposed to do? It's not my fault there were so many. If you think my approach was negative, you can do the same. Watch any round of AJ-Breazeale and list out the technical errors you see. That's a terrible heavyweight right there. How hard can it be? If you can't even match Breazeale, how're you making claims of Sharkey being better than all the super heavyweights? This is Dominic fukin Breazeale. One of the worst super heavyweights. A former football player with little to no technical ability. Quit wasting time and get to work.
The Logo. Nobody could stop that guy. He could put it on the floor lightening quick to the basket..oh but that pulll up
It that is not a no brainier in favor of Walker for you, then there is a problem. I reject your analogy entirely. I would with hesitation favor Wladamir Klitschko over Jack Sharkey, but even if I did not, I would just be picking the champion of one era over the champion of another. You are picking a third rater from over era, over the champions of another. That is more akin to me picking somebody like Ford Smith or Harry Thomas over Wladamir Klitschko! Who is really biased here? I watched it when it happened, and I didn't really expect it ever to be brought up in Breazles defense in the future! I can watch it again if you like. I will let you in on a little secret. Most super heavyweights are not very good technically. They have a very basic skill set, and get away wit it because of their size. The Klitschko brothers for example, both have technical deficiencies that would get a guy the size of Sharkey killed, but they got away with it due to their size! Yes he would, especially in the heavyweight division. Today's cruiser weights are by and large much better all round fighters than out best heavyweights. On paper yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will win when they fight! Then presumably you don't need to work for a living, and get by just by betting off boxing! That is just your speculation. For all you know he might have got found out pretty quickly! No it is only half of what you were supposed to do. I could point to examples of modern fighters making these "mistakes", including some who incorporated them into their fundamental style. A flat earther or a young young earth creationist frames their argument, by attacking the opposite position. The problem with their argument comes when you ask "OK, so what are you going to put in its place and why?" The other half of your argument would be that these traits have been eradicated in boxing at the highest level, and most particularly in the case of Breazle. This is clearly not the case however. There are fighters in every era who fight with their hands that their waists, and there are fighters in every era that lean back from punches. A straight right is actually easier to time going back than a left hook by the way.
Breazeale would be a bad fighter in any era. He has a manufactured record, lucked his way into the ratings, and proved to be little more than a soft punching bag. His only noteworthy win was over a 44 year old 6 foot at best brawler in Mansour. Mansour won every completed round and dropped Breazeale, before nearly biting his own tongue off over an ill suited mouthpiece which forced a corner retirement. It was the flukest of wins. People bash Douglas for throwing a wide lead uppercut against Evander but that was set up by a beautiful feint. Breazeale just launched it when it was obvious Wilder was already throwing his weight into a right hand...absolute madness.
Have Golden Feather and Carl Childers ever been online at the same time ?? Both registered around the same time, both with similar opinions, bad attitude and posting style, hmmmmmmm, I wonder....
No modern fighter fights with his face first and his hands by his waist. https://streamable.com/5qj3s
"If this is not a no brainer in favour of Froch for you, then there is a problem." There. You keep doing the same thing. You make a statement and you never back it up. You never answered any of these questions either: Why are boxers taught fundamentals first? Why did people crap on Wilder for lacking fundamentals? How was Sharkey more technically sound than Breazeale? "You have guys like Carl Froch, who have thrown the entire rule book out of the window, and still unified multiple belts." Can you back up this statement? Key phrase: "The entire rule book" You: "You are coming across as being one of those supporters of modern fighters, who picks up on minor technical flaws in old timers, while excusing the most fundamental flaws in modern fighters!" Me: "What are these "most fundamental flaws"? Can you list these fundamental flaws?" How was Sharkey a "much more" complete fighter than Anthony Joshua? Go back to any of your posts and bring up a point I didn't address. But you know my stance. I believe fighters improved since the 1920s. How am I being biased? I'm stating what I believe. Sharkey is a greater fighter than any current heavyweight. He just can't compete with them. It's nothing like picking Ford Smith over Klitschko. Unless you believe fighters were better in the 1920s. Then you'd have a reason to make that pick. A third rater from today's NBA would be the MVP in the 20s/30s (ABL). A good high school player today would dominate in the 20s/30s. A third rater from 1930s could never compete in the NBA today. If he played exactly the way he did in the 30s, he would be picked last at the YMCA. You probably think boxing is different from all the other sports. But it isn't. All competition based sports have improved over time (especially over a century). You don't think athletes learn from the past? How did we establish fundamentals in sports? Was that a revelation? Or did we see the mistakes older athletes made and corrected them? How did Jack Blackburn create such a technically sound fighter in the 30s? Don't you think Joe Louis was superior to every other heavyweight of his era? Could that be considered improvement? Someone like Newton spent years formulating the laws of motion. Now a 14 year old could tell you what they are. Blackburn must have seen errors fighters make to come up with that fighting style. And Joe wasn't just different from other heavyweights of his era, he was better. Guys like Baer and Carnera were former world champions in the same era as Louis but their skills were of a journeyman compared to Joe Louis. You wanna convince me that boxers haven't improved over a hundred years. Explain to me how Joe Louis was so much better than everyone around him. I also wanna address something you said earlier. "Being fundamentally sound, does not translate into being a good boxer at world level." More often than not, it does. You'll struggle to name fundamentally sound fighters who weren't considered good boxers at world level. Maybe you can name a few but for each fighter you name, I can name 5 fundamentally sound fighters who were considered good boxers at world level. And don't start naming great amateur fighters who weren't great pros. You can win a gold medal without being fundamentally sound. Ray Mercer and Audley Harrison are gold medalists. Deontay Wilder and David Price are bronze medalists. Name fighters who were fundamentally sound but weren't considered good boxers. I've asked you to do that 4 times. This is the 5th time. That was the original argument. Ok. So you're saying Wladimir Klitschko had technical deficiencies that Sharkey didn't have. Back that up please. "Basic skillset". Did you know Wladimir had one of the best jabs in heavyweight history? Is that a basic skill? Wladimir was literally one of the most technically sound heavyweights of all time. Can you please list these technical deficiencies Klitschko brothers had (Wlad in particular)? I asked you earlier, how was Sharkey a more complete fighter than Anthony Joshua. You never answered that. Answer this one though cuz this is way more interesting. To be fair, smaller fighters are usually better than the big fighters. Middleweights are better than Cruiser-weights. Cruiser-weights are better than heavyweights. Usually. Sharkey would not survive in today's heavyweight division. He wouldn't even make it as far as Breazeale did. That's my point. Styles make fights. The better fighter doesn't always win the fight. Ken Norton wasn't a better fighter than Ali. But he had the style to bother Ali. AJ and Fury beat Wladimir. Doesn't mean they were as good as Wladimir. McCall and Rahman KO'd Lewis. Purrity, Sanders, Brewster KO'd Wladimir. Thomas and Page were outboxed by Berbick. Bonecrusher KO'd Witherspoon. Bowe was outboxed by Golota. I can go on and on. Joshua is a better fighter than Wilder. Fury could have been knocked out cold in that 12th round and he'd still be a better fighter than Wilder. Ortiz was knocked out by Wilder but he's still a better fighter than Wilder. I'm only talking about skillset. No one can truly predict the outcome of a fight. But we can study fighters and know who's better. It doesn't take a genius to see who's better between Norton and Shavers. But Shavers KO'd him in the first round. Who was the better fighter between Walcott and Marciano? Patterson and Johannson? Frazier and Foreman? Sharkey and Carnera? Charles and Layne? Walcott and Layne? Better fighter doesn't always win. Joshua is a better fighter than Wilder and I don't need them to fight to see that. "I can't see him (Breazeale) being very competitive with any of them!" Was that not speculation? Every fantasy fight is speculative. How long did it take Max Baer and Carnera to get found out? They built world class resumes first. Wilder is much better than both. I'm sticking with my speculation. Go ahead. I'll wait. Show me a modern fighter who makes these mistakes on a regular basis.
"frames their argument by attacking the opposite direction". LMAOO!! Me: "He (Breazeale) beats all 3, probably by KO." You: "We cater for all opinions here I guess!" Me: "Baer/Carnera/Sharkey weren't better than Breazeale. Breazeale doesn't make as many technical errors as them." You: "Are you saying that Breazeale looks better on film than Jack Sharkey? We can bring up some film and compare them if you want!" Me: "Absolutely. Let's see who was more technically sound. Name any Sharkey fight. I'll find the fundamental/technical errors and I'll list them for you. You can do the same for Breazeale's fight." You: "Do you prefer his domination at Joshua's hands, or Wilder's? Outside of that, you are struggling to pick a world class opponent, and then that becomes a factor. Anybody can look decentish against weak opposition!" Me: "You can pick the Wilder fight but you won't find much there. Let's go with the Joshua fight. Breazeale was less experienced there. What should I watch for Sharkey?" You: "Sharkey-Carnera I" I didn't watch Sharkey-Carnera I, I watched the rematch instead (better quality footage). I didn't attack the opposite direction. You asked me to watch Sharkey. You were supposed to watch Breazeale so we could compare the two. I posted a list of technical errors I found 6 hours after you asked me to watch the fight. It's been 42 hours since I posted my list and you still haven't done nothing. Now you're telling me I created my argument by attacking the opposite direction. And you want me to tell you what Sharkey should've done instead. I'm doing all the work here. Don't lean forward to cover distance. Your feet are what cover the distance for you (duh). He should've stepped in with his jab if he was too far out. He could've doubled or tripled the jab as he moved forward. Doubling the jab helps you cover distance and keeps your opponent occupied. He could've advanced by pushing off his rear foot and jabbed. He could have feinted as he moved forward and closed the distance before he actually threw a jab. Don't step into your opponent's range with your hands down. Sharkey literally walked into 3 jabs in one round. This is Primo Carnera timing Sharkey. Sharkey stood tall with his hands down and walked forward in a straight line. He could have attacked from an angle. He could've at least tried to move his head. Then I'd think he was trying to lure Carnera in for a counter. This is like Usyk walking forward with his hands down and gets jabbed right on the nose by AJ. I don't care how good Usyk is, that would be an inexcusable error. It's also a bad look for a so called "very good technician". I expect a technician to know how to manage distance. Know when you're in your punching range and when you are in your opponent's. I'm not asking for too much here. Don't pull back in a straight line with your hands down. It doesn't matter if it's Sharkey or Ali. An error is an error. If it was a moderately intelligent fighter, he could've easily taken advantage of this. You can only lean back so much. You can lean away from one punch, maybe two but a fighter who follows up can easily get you. One can feint you to lean back and step in once you lean away. You have no balance and can be floored easily. When you lean back your feet are planted to the ground. It makes any sort of movement a difficult task. Leaning back also takes away any counter-punching opportunities. That's the difference between leaning back and pulling. You can pull out of range and come back with a counter. Can't do that if you're leaning back. Sharkey had bad punching technique. Every decent heavyweight today can punch without losing their balance and without disturbing their fighting stance. Sharkey threw a right hand from orthodox stance but as he throws the right, his right foot gets ahead of his left. There's no reason to do that. You can't follow up at all after that and now you are vulnerable as you reset because your opponent can easily attack you knowing you're in a compromised position. He did the same thing when he threw he left hook. You can throw a left hook and move forward at the same time without stepping forward with your rear foot. You push off your rear foot, hop forward. Fundamentals!!! Sharkey crossed his feet way too many times for a world class fighter. It's fundamental footwork. When you forward, your left foot moves first, right foot follows. Moving backwards, rear foot goes back first, lead foot follows. Maintain your stance at all times so you have proper balance in case you get punched or you want to punch. Sharkey failed to do this on numerous occasions as I listed in my post. You can see for yourself. The technical errors Sharkey made won't be seen in Breazeale. Breazeale is almost always in position to punch and take a punch. He won't lean forward the way Sharkey did. You won't see Breazeale stumbling after he throws a jab. You won't see him leaning back with his hands down. You won't see him walking into punches with his hands down. He knows how to keep his hands up. That's the most primitive form of defence. Keep you hands UP. He'll get hit because he's slow and doesn't have great defence. He's just not that good compared to other elite heavyweights. But I'm not comparing him to today's elite heavyweights. I'm comparing him to elite heavyweights that fought almost 100 years ago. He's definitely better than them. There are many fighters who fought with hands at their waist. When did I ever say that Sharkey fighting with his hands down is a technical error? I only pointed to the times he was a vulnerable because of his lack of guard. He showed little to no head movement and still kept his hands low. That's the problem. If you look at elite heavyweights who fight/fought with their hands low, they either have decent/good/great head movement and/or they know how to parry/catch punches. I didn't see Sharkey parry a single punch, he didn't move his head and he was fighting a very slow fighter. If there's other fighters who leaned away from punches with their hands down, they were also making a technical error. Even if everyone did it, still wouldn't make it right. I don't what the last sentence means.
You could argue that Froch was a better fighter than Walker (at least theoretically, it would be a ridiculous argument), but I don't see how you could argue that Froch was more technically corect. If Froch is technically correct, then there is no such this as a technically incorrect fighter!
