"Decent fundamentals" of Willie Driver - a fighter better than Sam Langford

The video I posted highlighting Langford’s skills is the only thing anyone needs to see to prove Pat has absolutely no idea of what he is writing about.

 

On a positive note, Tony Mosco actually looks pretty decent.

 

Mosco only had only three pro bouts. His bout with Driver his last.

 

Pat obviously knows his boxing… so I see his (admittedly over-the-top, and not to be taken too seriously) comments in this thread as some sort of counter to all the strange posts her on Classic, where boxers who fought 100+ years ago are claimed to be the equal of (or better than) today's boxers.

 

This. I can’t believe Sam Langford, who is one of the most experienced and proven pros to ever lace up boxing gloves is being compared to Willie Driver, who was a novice and never even got 200 rounds under him as a pro fighter.

Langford knew how to establish range and effectively cut off the ring without being an easy target. Driver loaded up while completely out of range and left himself wide open.

Driver at 23 years old was debuting as a pro while Langford at 23 years old already had over 50 fights as a pro and as well as plenty of fights under his belt against top pros.

 

There is no reason why boxers from 100 years ago were not better than today’s fighters.

Boxing fundamentals have remained unchanged during that length of time. What has changed is the amount and quality of trainers available to pass down said skills. This plus the very watered down nature of the sport today is why these skills are rarely demonstrated in the hwt division. As an example Frazier fought in his prime 50 years ago. Who bobs and weaves as good as Frazier in the hwt division today? Louis fought in his prime 85 years ago. Who throws combinations as good as Louis today?

Answer to both questions is no one and it’s not close.

You can carry this on to individual skills such as slipping, partying, feinting, blocking, These were the fine points of the game. Basic skills ignored today replaced with lower skill concepts like covering up mid ring, keeping an opponent at a long distance (only doable because said opponents can’t slip and counter).

 

Thanks. I've never claimed that Driver was great or even good, just that he was no worse than 1910 Langford. If these people would make claims like, "if Langford had been born in 1990, trained and learned modern boxing, he'd be a contender today", that would be reasonable. Instead there are two Bert Sugar/Monte Cox disciples arguing that 1910 Langford is better than the fighters today. 1910 Langford as seen on video, was awful by modern standards, his opponent (Flynn) is worse. Langford, just as he was in 1910 wouldn't be competitive today.

The one guy, even posted a Cox video of Langford doing things like parrying a jab like it's some lost art of boxing. Guys who make the Youtube highlight videos usually don't know much but guys like the two Langford supporters think Cox and Sugar are experts.

He does, a little stiff, but he had potential. If he was placed in a time machine and taken back to 1910 he'd probably handle the squared up, short, wild swinging, from the outside Langford as easily as he handled Driver.