Examples of what? It’s right there in the footage. Those are the examples. If you think Fitz and Corbett (or that any fighter from that era) look like great fighters, you are simply lying to yourself. There is not one fighter I’ve seen whose prime occurred pre-20s that impresses me. The ones pre-20th century are flat out trash by modern standards. Once again, I’m not an “everything keeps evolving over time” kinda guy. Most things don’t. They die. But to deny that any evolution has ever taken place from the time something was conceived to the time it became global is just flat out ******ed.
Examples of proofs that boxing was much less popular back then. Or maybe I see in Fitzsimmons something you don't? Gans, McFarland, Langford and Gibbons are not trash by any standards.
Under the Marquess of Queensbury rules, it didn’t. As I see it (not because I want to, but because I’m not a blatant deceiver of my own eyes), the difference between LPR and MOQ was similar to the difference between boxing pre-20th century compared with post-Walker Law.
You mean stats that show, there are far more boxers today than during Fitz's time? What would be the point - your answer will always be, that there were thousands of boxers who weren't registered in the old days, and therefore possibly just as many as today. Isn't that your strategy - denying everything that doesn't fit your agenda?
In terms of footage of anyone that could be considered an actual LPR fighter, there's a few seconds of an ancient Billy Edwards This content is protected And some footage of a completely out of shape Jem Carney in an exhibition with a completely out of shape Jack McAuliffe, that doesn't seem to be on YouTube currently. How the **** are you going to make any judgement on boxing pre-MoQ Vs post-MoQ with your own eyes?
That's hilarious! Boxing exclusively in the 21st century, Kristian Laight retired in 2018 with 300 pro bouts under his belt. Another 300-fight man, whose career streched into this century, is Peter Buckley. Reggie Strickland had his 363rd and final fight in 2005.
yep, apparently you like unskilled fighters, when you see a fighter who slaps with wide punches, has terrible balance, backs straight up, doesn't transfer his weight, is clumsy, etc., you get excited and do Cheetah flips. The video of Fitzsimmons fighting the guy in the thong is one of the worst examples of boxing I've ever seen. I don't care if BF had 3000 fights against other unskilled, nonathletic people, he still looks like a nonathletic, clumsy, unskilled man in a boxing ring. A guy like that should never be mentioned in a post with Julian Jackson, it's an insult to Jackson.
Yes, show me how big is the difference between 1900 and 2020. I'd like to know what "far more" means.
Fitzsimmons doesn't transfer his weight, my God Imagine what he would have done if he had, he'd kill people with one punch. Fitzsimmons didn't use wide punches actually against Corbett, all of his counter body shots are tight. My favorite boxers are skilled, unorthodox fighters like Archie Moore or Henry Armstrong. Just because I don't have an orgasm when I see someone fighting in conventional way doesn't mean that I like unskilled fighters. People like you believe that when you do "right" things in the ring, you can beat anybody. It's not true, to be elite boxer you need elite physical gifts. Fitzsimmons had them - he was extremely powerful, he had fast reflex, he had great ring IQ and he possessed tons of experinece. You are ignorant fool if you believe that Fitzsimmons is unathletic and clumsy. You are ignorant if you think that you are smart enough to judge who's good and who's not based on footage. It's not enough and honestly, if you really believe what you say then I'm starting to doubt that you have any closer contact with this sport, mister coach.