if one understands boxing technique/fundamentals, that's all that is needed to assess a boxer. If the boxer is uncoordinated, slow, lacks foot work, but is undefeated, that just means his opposition was worse than him. It doesn't mean that the boxer could beat bigger, stronger, more athletic men with better skills. Believe what you want, the truth is on the video and the people at the Mayweather Gym understand what they're seeing when they watch the video. For the ones of you who think Bert Sugar, Larry Merchant, etc. are "experts" on boxing and know more about boxing than boxers and trainers, you can keep believing that coordination, speed, foot work, etc. are unimportant.
if all anyone needs to understand is boxing technique then they won’t know the difference between the levels. Watching highlights of fighters matched to win will always look more impressive than watching two fighters more evenly matched restricting what the other can do. How many fighters look great until they fight somebody who turned up to win closer to their own level? If technique was all you need to assess a boxer you would be entirely wrong. You can find plenty of modern trainers who insist standard of boxing technique has deteriorated over time. Yes there have been improvements in diet, strength and conditioning but all that has came at a cost. What has been gained in one hand has been lost in another. Stronger fighters are actually getting more tired doing less rounds. Boxers have become stronger but We also see less one punch knockouts.
So you're telling me the "experts" from the Mayweather gym are qualified to comment on fighters they've in all likelihood barely watched or analysed in any depth? Over guys like Sugar and Merchant who have literally watched them live and seen thousands of other fighters live, from all eras, to compare and contrast them with? Arguably the best heavyweight out there now is one of the clumsiest, most poorly skilled, and amateurish fighters you could see. If he was filmed in black and white footage he'd be laughed at by you and your gym oracle's. Funnily enough he succeeds in spite of this against fighters who look better on film than him. Ever thought that Marciano might have had some qualities as well that allowed him to succeed in spite of his flaws?
Deontay Wilder doesn't look clumsy to me, he looks athletic, quick, strong, and confident. I don't know what you mean by "amateurish" since many amateurs are among the best boxers in the world. Wilder has nothing in common with a slow, clumsy fighter. Wilder has movement and speed that most heavyweights have never seen. IMO, anybody that has been in the gym for years can look at a fighter for a moment and see more than Sugar or Merchant could ever see. I couldn't care less what Sugar or Merchant thought of a fighter, but if one of our amateurs watches a Youtube video and talks about a fighter I listen. Video tells the story, when a man crosses his feet consistently or falls off balance when he punches, it tells me more about that fighter than what anybody can write about him. If you think black and white video is what makes those guys look unimpressive, it might be to you, but I'm watching what they do and the color of the video doesn't matter.
I'll take practically anyone's opinion over Sugar and Merchant If you fall for their acts, that is telling. No one of sane mind would argue that Marciano is the best heavyweight "out there"... Film shows he is clumsy and poorly skilled. What he did possess was innate strength, stamina and will. I will never undersell him on those. But I will never overestimate their impact in a match-up, either.
I try to respect everyone’s opinion here. But I tend to find some of these comments about Marciano being “ unskilled, slow, clumsy and off balance “ insulting. He wasn’t any of those things. Granted he wasn’t Muhammad Ali in the agility department and nor did he have the ring IQ of Bernard Hopkins but he wasn’t a crude club fighter either.
What's to fall for? The guys were involved in and around boxing for decades. I might not agree with everything they say but I'll definitely give consideration to their opinions. It's called being considered and open minded. The fact you're basically admitting to being neither (or at the very least selective in who's opinion you put any stock in) is telling. I never said anything about Rocky being the best anything, excepting being the best heavyweight of his era and he couldn't have done this without some things going for him. Reducing him to the level of some short armed, flat nosed bum who can barely stand up without tripping over is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the fighter he was.
“ VERY” ? I guess it depends who we compare him to. Do I think he was Clumbsy uncoordinated oaf the way that some of you guys are trying to depict him as ? No..
Sure. When Wilder launches one of those wild windmill attacks or looks clueless getting outboxed for round after round he sure looks athletic, strong, quick and confident (I notice they're all physical traits and not technical skills that impress you about him too). He's got a great quality that thus far has covered up his technical flaws, for how much longer I'm not sure but good luck to him. Whatever works for him he's going to keep doing it much like Marciano. Marciano had faults but he was better than the stumble bum you seem to think he was. He was a great body puncher, punched with full weight and leverage for his height, was very good at keeping the fight at the range he was comfortable at (also known as ring generalship) was strong, tough, confident and determined. This guy who had no skill or qualities I don't see but then again I'm no expert like you.
I've been around and following boxing since the late 70's. Sugar was a buffoon who only simps took with any degree of seriousness. He was a caricature, a teller of tall (and already too often repeated) tales, not a source for in depth analysis. Merchant was biased as the day is long. He liked 4 martinis before calling the fight and had small man's complex (thus his admiration for Marciano).
He knew his assets and limitations. He knew how to maximize the former and mitigate the latter. And he had amazing determination. Somewhere in there lies something that could be labeled skill. But, his lack of orthodox skill and a certain level of athletic grace, left him wide open to bigger, longer, YOUNGER and more skilled challengers that he never faced.
I'm here nor there on either. Sugar was a character and Merchant was entertaining enough. They've still both been around long enough to have seen plenty of fighters first hand to have an opinion (and for what it's worth I don't really even know what either thought if Marciano) like any of us except they would have seen a whole lot more first hand than we have. I recall Joe Rein who was no misty eyed revisionist also spoke highly of Marciano (who he admitted looked dreadful in training and sparring) as a rugged, tough man who hurt anyone he worked with or fought. Was he a joke or a drunk too? Plenty of others admired Marciano as a fighter as well. It's only a vocal minority who hold his size, record, ethnicity and appearance against him. I mean he's literally the only fighter I've heard of who gets criticism for fighting and beating all the best fighters of his era, like he had any choice in who they were. It ridiculous.
