How well would Sam Langford do today?

It only looked completely different because in 1920 there was a complete renaissance and rule change which changed how people fought. Not because it's evolving in a linear progression, because it was forced to adapt. Ask yourself why no fighter bar one or two have looked as good as Robinson, or Charles.

Classic case of people confusing the words new and improved.

What are you talking about? Zale and Graziano look awful in that fight

Yeah, they didn't swing wildly and disregard defence.

You should check out Mickey Walker. Brilliant offensive unit and very entertaining. Really likable character, too.

Then we have absolutely nothing to talk about. I can't fathom why on earth you'd dismiss guys like Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Tony Canzoneri, Freddie Steele and so on from being able to beat guys their own size and win titles. Ridiculous.

 

Walker was awesome, but after Dempsey really.

 

Yeah, course. Sorry, I associate him with Greb, whom I associate with 1919. Same era as Dempsey IMO.

 

You don't think Zale's fight-ending combo - right to the body, left hook to the chin - was a thing of beauty?

 

No?

 

agreed it was brawling and one guy got caught , now if Graziano would have clinched after that right hand that return hook to his jaw doesnt happen ( for the crybabies that said boxers clinched too much in the 20s there were reasons they did that.)

 

I love that fight.

Louis is too flat footed to stand a chance. Yes, I know he did that to conserve energy, but still, he isn't mobile enough for me to think he stands a chance.
Armstrong was a great pressure fighter and I like the man. But it baffles me he was so successful while being bent over with his head down always moving forward. It looks like he could barely see his opponents from that crouched position. He also moved forward too slow IMO. He'd get tagged way too often, no opponent is gonna stand there like a idiot in front of him.
The other 2 stand no chance.
But this is just my opinion, it should not bother you.

 

Armstrong's success wouldn't baffle you if you understood that you can know what a man is about to do by seeing his feet and his hips.
Only guys that don't know how to fight move from the top down.

 

But in boxing your opponent is gonna hit you with his arms, not with his feet and hips.
I might sound ignorant, but how can you tell with which type of punch your opponent is gonna hit you with just by looking at his feet and hips ?!

 

By the way his body weight shifts.
The weight will shift on his feet and his hips will turn before his hands move.

 

you got a lot to learn before you speak matter of fact about who beats who and classic vs modern, In addition to what grey posted . If you stand to the right of your opponent and move left (and up) to attack them. The only thing you have to worry about is the left hand(the right wont reach you at least not quick enough for you to see it . Part 1 million why classic boxers beat modern guys they didnt stand directly in front of their opponents.

This content is protected

heres the video on boxing devolving!

 

Do not piggyback on an actual boxing experts posts Grey knows his sh1t you’re just obnoxious.

 

I put this in the wrong thread.

 

Oh boy... that's quite an opinion. Arguing that Armstrong wouldn't be good enough is the new level...

 

shutup dummy !