Sam McVea vs Battling Jim Johnson 1910 (Speed Corrected)

I think it was to show his disdain for Maloney. He had surpassed Maloney throughout their rivalry and toyed with him in this bout. Usually he was more cautious, sometimes to a fault.

 

LOL! I don't see the sense in judging this great fighter on 2 minutes of old footage taken out of context. I could be wrong but it's clear to me McVey underestimated an unheralded opponent, and Jim Johnson fought the fight of his life. And it turned out to be a draw. Three months later McVey ko'ed him and won all the rest of their known meetings, 4 or 5 fights. They fought each other a combine what 100+ rounds? McVey is great, Gilbert Odd rated him #7 all time in the 70s or so and I trust his view more than a few butchered minutes of a dusty old film reel

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R0ro_Rq26I[/ame]

www.youtube.com/eslubin

 

I have to say McVey does not exhibit anywhere near the skill we saw from
Langford against Jeannette, imo.

 

You earned your money if you sparred with Jack.
Larry Gains ,who worked with him,when Gains was coming up said ,if a sparring partner was told he would not be used that day,"the relief on his face was something to see ".

 

:yikes holy cow...what a right hand, and they say that the left hook was his most lethal weapon.

 

I've never heard, that Odd thought this highly of McVey... but if that's true, I'd like to see the rest of his top-10?

 

McVey DOES look horrible, there's nothing to deny about it
Jeanette doesn't look great either....that comical thrusting jab is something that would work only in the days of boxing infancy.

But we shouldn't get carried away by a video, after all the sloppy sluggish and wild Dempsey KTFO the all mighty impressive Jack Sharkey.

 

McVey was better than this footage indicates. This is the problem with judging a fighter on one snippet of film.

 

Jeanette looks like ****, too.

I think some observers want to see skills that objectively are not exhibited. It looks like a glorified tough man competition.

And by the way, Dempsey looks old and shitty, too.

 

David Haye and Vitali (making it 2 of the top 3) fighters in the world at the moment do it.

I think the that if you hold your left low you can put much more power into it.

Also, it seems to make it easier to counterpunch when you use your upper body to sway away from a punch. In the older days, some held it low to protect their body which was more important with the smaller gloves, but i think that i high guard does the same thing and is better in this regard.

I also think that when there was more clinching allowed the low guard was more effective, because if you foughtin a high guard it was easier for the opponent to tie you up under the rules.

 

It was just a throw away sparring session. Plenty of modern greats look just as bad in these things because they mean nothing. And by the way, i did think Dempsey's last right hand looked pretty impressive despite it being a nothing opponent.

One thing i did notice about Dempsey particularly in this fight (and have in others before) is that he stands very square on. I think that while this helps him land effectively with both hands, it makes him far easier to hit. I think this is why he was caught cleanly a fair few times in his career (such as Firpo, and possibly even Flynn, who knows). But i think this is also why Tunney was able to land so willingly. Despite his uncanny defensive skills and reactions, i think that the square stance means he would be caught reasobably often by many of the greats.

 

My mistake it was Broadway Charley Rose who rated McVey #7. And he had Langford on top as of 1968. He saw them all from the turn of the century into the mid-70s. I can't pretend someone's perception on a couple mins of clips compares to this haha! I can take 2 mins of Sugar Ray also and make him look like like a trial horse too. Perspective matters

As for people knocking Jeannette. Well no one knows how Lennox Lewis and Holyfield would look if they fought 11 times either. The wares you bring in to a single shot against a fighter you'll never meet or see again would change if you meet that man a dozen times in hundreds of rounds.

Think about it. That makes Langford-Jeannette doubly significant, because its the most complete version of two boxers who competed for MONEY in the frame of hundreds of rounds.

The basic stuff would just stop working at some point, like two magicians trying to surprise each other. Once again, perspective is reality. But if we want to "feel" old timers suck, thats your business! lol seems like a bleakly inaccurate outlook on the past to me. These men got on top in their era and were feared and respected for a reason. Game recognize game. non-game just can't/won't !




Charley Rose, 1968

1. Sam Langford
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Joe Louis
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Gene Tunney
7. Sam McVey
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Jim Corbett
10. Max Baer

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R0ro_Rq26I[/ame]

www.youtube.com/eslubin