Bad Moments from Great Boxers

I tend to agree with John Galt here. I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with the Baer highlights or the sped up Doyle footage.

I said earlier today that Galento might beat Bruce Seldon. That's a much fairer assessment than claiming he'd beat Ortiz, who would destroy him easily.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Certainly a reasonable ****ogy but they are actually worlds apart, skill and technique wise.

 

The guys that were training the fighters you call flawed taught the next generation of trainers that came along who taught the next generation and so on until you have the guys of today. You think a new breed of trainers and fighters just came along and said "**** what they did this is the right way"? It's impossible. The essence of boxing technique that was in Dempsey's book is the same technique used today. A right cross is still thrown the same way now that it was by the so called "flawed" fighters of yesterday. Boxing hasn't changed, the fighters have and by that I mean the guy who is doing the punching and which punch he chooses to throw. You can find just as many top fighters today who look the same in techniques just put the film in black and white. The only thing that has changed is the toughness and training. Think about it, how can a guy who always fights low ranking guys even compare to a guy who fights top level competitors? HOW?!!! Also, when picking apart guys on technique or something like that it is always the brawlers who knock guys out that you pick on. Never guys like Joe Louis or Dempsey. Baer, Galento, and Marciano are the guys that I see get called out the most.

 

BTW, if you're going to do this ridiculous name-calling, please explain what on earth you found disingenuous about me or my post.

Is it your contention that the things I identified and critiqued were uncharacteristic aberrations from Baer and Galento? I realize that you don't understand boxing well enough to recognize the differences between terrible punches & good ones, bad footwork & good footwork, etc. but I would appreciate some clarification on what exactly it is you're whining about here in this thread, since you've gone so far as to call me names.

PS - LOL at you rallying the troops to cape for "classic boxers"! You're too much!

 

This is a deeply flawed argument. In boxing, as in many other realms of life, people develop new ideas and improvise off old ones all the time, through experience and experimentation, through trial and error. Different fighters with different physical talents and personal traits put their own gloss on certain techniques, in some instance changing the game profoundly. Some trainers probably gain new insights once they hang up their own gloves and start working with younger fighters. Your argument treats boxers and trainers like they were all just pre-programmed robots who can only know & do what older generations programmed them to do.

Sadly, some people around here use a spurious line of logic where they offer isolated examples of similar tactics being used by boxers of earlier generations ("ooh, look-- he threw jabs too!!") as proof that there is nothing new under the sun, while ignoring many obvious, in some instances profound, differences between different fighters. Makes no sense to me.

 

Garcia swinging a lot and Morales making fun of that.

 

:rofl :rofl:rofl

So goofy I don't know where to begin with this.

 

Again, I made no attempt to hide my disdain for the crude techniques and limited skills exhibited in the Baer-Galento clip, and I did not think that the clip itself was in any way misleading.

So now you're calling me disingenuous because I used sarcasm in earlier posts about Marciano?? Give me a break.

I've been completely open in my views about the technical flaws of certain fighters. I've been steadfast and outspoken in my belief that several "ATGs" would fare very poorly against non-ATG fighters with more refined skills and greater physical gifts. Let's be honest-- the real problem is that you just can't stomach people harshly criticizing the "classic" heavyweight heroes that you believe belong on pedestals. You got so butt-hurt about it that you started this ridiculous thread, exaggerating what some of us had been saying/doing, and probably hoping that the other past-worshippers would all rally and rebuke us.

PS - In case you somehow haven't noticed, I'm far more interested in discussing the more skilled boxers of the past 40 years than the relatively crude heavyweights of yesteryear. I wouldn't feel the urge to post half of the stuff I do criticizing them if not for some of the inane encomiums you and some of the other past-worshippers post (and often while denigrating more physically and technically superior modern fighters). It's just a big pet peeve of mine.

 

Good work reznick!!:good

 

Well let me just say that there are moments when orthodox boxing becomes a liability to boxers. There are plenty of ATG boxers who made tons of mistakes in orthodox terms, but would they have been sucessful with these so called mistakes? What would Roy Jones be without the lead right?Prince Nasim be without the corkscrew lead upper cut and stance switching? These guys who many say were relying on their athletesism act like they were wrong to do so.

Their job was to win the fight and they did so using every advantage that they had. They made millions doing so. So maybe don't hold it aganist them when they are able to use the fact that boxers are generally trained a certain way against them. RJJ using the right as a lead when most were trained to defend the left isn't a mistake, it's very intelligent. Naz and his sloppy hands down jab makes far more sense when you realize he is trying to draw a counter and land his right hook.

There is no right way for a person to fight. If a person is perposely showing bad habits in the expectation of drawing a counter and countering that counter, how can you call it bad boxing?