I have seen Harold Johnson in one of the Fight Of The Week threads. There were two fights, one with Ezzard Charles, the other with Willie Pastrano. I thought HJ looked good against Charles and won convincingly. Against Pastrano, he didn't cut off the ring and just followed Pastrano around but it might have been because he didn't want a firefight and thought he could get the decision with just his jab? I haven't seen enough of Canzoneri to give an opinion. But, I agree with you about Harold Johnson, he was a well schooled fighter.
Here's some footage of Johnson vs Archie Moore. This was about 6 years before the Pastrano bout, I think. This is their fifth bout. This content is protected I would also check out Canzoneri if you have the time. ATG and a very interesting fighter to watch.
Stop it already. Absolutely no one has argued that Jofre or Napoles or Griffith or any of the greats of that time wasn't skilled. 60's Ali is probably the highest rated HW h2h around here, Monzon is among the highest rated MWs h2h and Duran one of the highest rated LWs h2h. A 40's fighter like SRR is definitely the highest rated WW h2h and one of the highest rated MWs h2h. What irks you is that most don't think Corbett, Carnera and Baer look that good on film and that many think that Marciano would be too outsized to dominate today's HW era. That's what you really bugs you, so stop this silliness that posters on the effing Classic forum wouldn't rate fighters before the 80's. It really puts you in a very bad light.
Not for me !! I always like when rez posts the vids no matter what his thread title says.. And I hadn't seen the Jofre interview yet in English posted by Chris.. A lot of good input/discussion so far in this thread from Rd, Pat, Seamus, Chris and others... You are appreciated rez! Thanks for taking the time to post all your awesome vids !!
Carnera and Baer were considered to look quite dreadful in their own time, so reznick really does hthe 1930s a disservice by trying to argue with the more fanatical "modernists" that they don't look bad. It just gives the anti-1930s brigade more ammo and reinforces ignorance and prejudices. Carnera was never taken seriously and Baer never took boxing seriously and it showed.
But which are these fanatical "modernists" on this forum? Everyone here that I've seen, everyone, rates the skills of Louis and Robinson very, very highly. Robinson is favoured against WWs in h2h arguments of all eras. Pep, Charles, Moore etc are also extremely highly rated here. So someone who really rates a a fighter that peaked some 80's years ago, like Louis did, is a "fanatical modernist"? There is no way to call that kind of reasoning for anything else but absurd.
Stop acting stupid. Of course you realize that one can think there have been some development over that time but still think that Napoles, Jofe, Ali, Moore, Johnson etc had great skills. I think that football has evolved since the 80's, but still think the skills of Maradona is absolutely breathtaking. There is no contradiction there. You know that, but get so furious with anyone seeing things differently from you that you constantly come up with these straw man arguments. Stop that and start arguing like an honest intelligent person instead.
There’s degrees of “dreadful.” Baer looks dreadful the way Foreman or Vitali looks dreadful. They’re not your image of what a boxing technician looks like. However, the more modern the boxer is, the more leeway they’re given for having their effectiveness outweigh their technique. Tell me I’m wrong. Modern fighters are generally excused, while older boxers are compared to club fighters. And in your heart you know I’m right.
Honest intelligence would be seeing me acknowledge a strawman if nobody argued that technique hasn’t evolved since the 60’s. Sounds like you just want to pick a fight you big bully. Some people’s kids, man.
I repeat, saying that boxing has evolved since the early 60's is not the same as saying that there weren't greatly skilled fighters back then. Because while some claim the former, no one that I've seen has claimed the latter. But, hey, feel free to name the ones who don't think Pep, Johnson, Moore, Napoles, Loche etc had great skills. I'm waiting.
Gvozdyk gave up plenty of ring cutting off opportunities against Ngumbu. And we all know Gvozdyk wouldn’t shy away from a firefight. Sometimes fights can’t follow some perfect choreography. It’s the nature of boxing.
I asked if boxing technique has evolved since the 60’s. Not whether or not there were skilled fighters. Nice strawman, hypocrite. Your lack of intelligence and incapability of following an argument is making you look stupid, and makes the forum look bad.
Not adressed to me, but clearly you proved my first post right. What you really are after are when you feel Baer has been put down, becayse the times Napoles has been called unskilled on this board doesn't exist. But feel free to prove me wrong. I personally would agree with you that Vitaly and Foreman doesn't look very different from Baer skill wise Especially Foreman does look quite like Baer . And sometimes (but not often) I see Vitaly and Wlad held forward almost as technicians, which I also take issue with. But if you want to make that argument, make that argument. To go around and pretend to counter arguments that has never been put forth in the first time is something else completely.
