A CBZ Writers Thoughts On The Greatest Heavies

The author makes good points about how the contemporary writers, trainers, etc are better judges of the fighters because they saw them in action, whereas we have written accounts and poor quality films... I really enjoyed the beginning of the article that went into deep focus on this subject. However, the further he writes, the more he loses me...

I think he places too much weight on everyone else, and has a faulty lack of self-confidence when it comes to making his own judgements, and when he finally does, he makes some stretches to fit his point.

The first thing that gave me pause was: "First, Fitzsimmons was considerably more cagey and defensively adept than Frazier". Cagey? Possibly. Frazier wasn't known for being cagey. More "defensively adept" is insulting. Look no further than the films we have of Fitz to see how adept Fitz was with defense...

Next, the Johnson part was downright biased against Johnson. He praises Johnson for his skill and grudgingly concedes that Johnson had respectable power, but gives a lot of attention to Johnson's lack of chin and durability... This is in contrast to Louis, who he spends quite a bit of time on, making a case for his chin. At the same time, he makes zero mention of Dempsey's chin, while both were knocked down 5 times more than Johnson! It's pretty clear that he has some bias against Johnson here.

Next, the Holmes portion was a stretch, and that's putting it nicely. To summarize, Holmes was a light puncher, while in contrast, he made the claim earlier that Ali was an underrated puncher (which he was; I just think Holmes should be afforded the same distinction), and that:
"Thus, he had trouble with aggressive fighters who put the pressure on him, like Ken Norton, Mike Weaver, and Earnie Shavers. Fortunately for Holmes, those guys all had glass jaws and (except for Norton) no stamina, and so ultimately wilted beneath Holmes’s steady barrage. But could he count on that against a Dempsey or a Louis? No way, particularly considering his career-long tendency to get hit by right hands over his left jab (Kevin Isaac, Renaldo Snipes, Duane Bobick (in the Olympic Trials), Shavers, Tyson)."

Here we see a double standard when it comes to fitting his point. All those guys had a "glass jaw". To put an exclamation point on his logic, he cites Holmes' being a sucker for a right with an amateur fight, a fight when Holmes was 7 fights in, and a fight when Holmes is completely washed up... So 3 of his 5 examples are a real stretch, to say the least.

Any writer is entitled to his opinions and to bias, but it seems he spends the most time on the fighters he likes, and highlights their good qualities while briefly addressing some of the more popular knocks against them. He doesn't afford everyone else the same treatment.

That's understandable, because he has an article to write, a point to make, and a position to establish. Overall, it was a good read.


Thanks, McVey

 

The fairy tales of youth can be hard to put aside but at some time everyone must learn to put away childish things.

 

Interesting article ... some good points, others a bit of romanticizing .. thanks for posting !

 

"Does that theory apply to the unbreakable Butterbean as well? Fat=punch resistance? "

Is it possible that fat heavyweights, even ones with less than strong chins like BB, would have been even more fragile if they had less tonnage? Hard to say. Maybe if Willie Meehan had a little less then Jack Dempsey would have stopped him in one round. Maybe Marciano would have taken out Don Cockell within five.

Size may indeed be a factor in determining punch resistance my friend It's not something to be so smugly dismissed.

 

Just had a quick look at the writers list and it's seriously ****, didn't read what he wrote because his list was so wankstained

 

Thanks for printing this article, McVey. I can't say I found that much insight in it. I agree with DaveK

The author presented the case for the prosecution for some (Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Marciano)

and a laughably biased case for the defense for others (Dempsey)

There were a few really strange opinions

1--Louis' opponents were, on the whole, over the hill?

2--Johnson had a weak jaw--I wonder how he went 25 years, from 1901 to 1026 while only being stopped once, and that in the 26th round by the 230 lb Willard when he was 37. So Johnson went about twice as long as Dempsey's (and in fairness lots of others, such as Marciano and Jeffries) entire careers while only being stopped in a finish fight. I would have all sorts of questions. How many at 37 would have done better than Johnson in 1915? Would the "iron-jawed" Dempsey have been able to last in finish fights with Tunney?

3--Firpo was better than the 1930's champions, including Schmeling.

4--Foreman "terrorized" the heavyweights of the nineties.

5--Wills was nothing much, but Fred Fulton was awesome.

 

I would disagree with everyone of those statements.

 

then you should not react here.. anyway i enjoyed the article very much. thnx for posting it. i don't agree totally with everything he wrote. but its a decent list.

 

:huh

 

:good

 

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Ever heard of Lennox Lewis?? 29-1-1 thru the 90's including wins over Holyfield (x2 really), Tyson, Bruno, Goltoa, Mercer, Morrison, Tua, Rudduck, won unified title etc, etc.

Some excellent points in the article tho despite some real hero worship to the days of yore.

 

Is this one of them "Back in my day" threads?

 

I think he's unbiasly accurate and gives an excellent breakdown and account of facts.

His rating standard is perfect - in that as I always say rating is impossable because it typically leans too much on achievement, this looks solely on the facts, i.e "who's better than who at their best and in a fight with each other - there is no better way to rate = H2H...

Film footage WAS ****, NOT the fighters, many, many more fighters, harder climb to Top Level, absolutely true, anybody that was there tells you that automatically, and that is the last point - the value of TOP men who were there recording and observing!!!

So I think he has made an excellent list, very good effort, Hats off to the man.

 

It was an interesting read and well thought out, but to say he's unbiased is preposterous.