Decent Quality of Sam McVey vs. Battling Jim Johnson video

Quite a lot can be picked out from this footage.

There is a lot of clinching going on, but nearly all of the clinches are in itiated by Johnson. He seems to be a spoiler in the mould of John Ruiz, who is able to nulify a nominaly superior fighter.

McVea seems to be a lot more reactive than we might have expected him to be, and does not force the fight. He makes good use of head movment, but essentialy tries to counter his opponent for openings. Given his undoubted power, you might question whether a more agresive style could have served him better.

 

Wow. Horrible.

Their jabbing technique is as follows. Raise the right hand straight out and then run with it into your opponent, commence clinch and winging shots around the opponent's guard. There is not a hint of any creativity (or really effectiveness) in the way either sets up their offense. If it weren't for the historic value, I couldn't even watch this.

 

Yes they know how to clinch well and do it often, but in between clinches these guys are very alert, quick, reactive, strong and frisky. And their bodies are solid and in shape. Don't think for a second that they wouldn't give modern heavys a tough time of it. That type of generalship doesn't always look pretty, but it can be quite effective.

 

I was waiting for this response... and it came

 

They might give toughman competitors a few minutes of pause. That's about it.

 

Let us assume what you say is correct.

If it is the case, how do you account for Jim Johnson stopping Jeff Clark, drawing with Langford twice,and drawing with Jeannette 3 times?


How do you furhter account for McVey beating Clark , and Barry, drawing with Langford 5 times, beating him twice, beating Harry Wills twice, drawing with Jeannette twice, beating Colin Bell twice ,and Denver Ed Martin 3 times .

If McVey and Jim Johnson are as poor as you state, then it surely follows that Langford, Jeannette, and Wills etc , must be on a par with them does it not? I don't see how you could reasonably come to any other conclusion.
That means therefore, that Langford, Jeannette, and Wills are all as mediocre as those that regularly held them even and, on occasion beat them and , that they too, would struggle with "toughman contenders".


As you have stated before, boxing really started in the 1960's , up till now , I thought you were joking, obviously ,I was mistaken.
Glad to get that cleared up.:good

 

I think you are beginning to understand.

 

Oh yeah, I am fully cognizant of your thought processes now.

All except for one niggling thing that is bugging me. It's this, if you believe all those guys were virtual toughman level in ability, and that boxing really evolved from the 60's onwards.


Why are you a permanent poster on the Classic Forum? Should you not be gracing the Moderns with your insightful expertise?

Rather than casting your pearls before us swine?

 

I am not saying that either of these might have become competent or excellent modern boxers with even a little schooling but as they are in this footage (maybe one or both improved afterward), most modern heavies, even the fat slobs whose roadwork only involves McDonalds drive-ins, would have a field day. Straight in attacks and retreats, that ****ed up thing I assume is supposed to be a jab... McVey could absorb an inhuman amount of punishment, so he might last for a few fights before the damage just added up to be too much.

I am sure their tenacity and effort pleased the audience.

 

I like the historic perspective, the stories behind these guys, the insane physical efforts they produced... and I generally think that much like today the lighter weight fighters were more entertaining, aesthetically pleasing and well, better. I will watch Benny Leonard all day, or Gans if there were more available.

 

McVey was an 8 year veteran of 41 fights, I doubt he would have improved. Johnson had only 13 fights so he may have.



"McVey opened in confident style, with the wide grin of one undertaking an easy task, but this smile faded after the second round, and he set himself for a grim, earnest fight with his quick and tricky oppenent. This Johnson is not only quick, but big and strong as well, and had all the best of the rough work. Sam seldom has had such hustling about. Once he stepped into a right punch that sent him reeling across the ring. It was as much as he could do to put a glove on the elusive Johnson. Johnson early realized that McVey's ripping left hook is his only effective attacking blow. Nine times out of ten he neatly stepped inside it or blocked it with his glove. His guard with his left arm straight out, after the fashion of the old-time champion Heenan, also worried McVey a good deal, for he found it very difficult to get past it." (Washington Post
Your answer confirms my opinion, you believe Jeannette, Langford,Wills ,McVey ect are Butterbean level. It's a point of view, I suppose.

 

I may be over cynical , but I think you come on here to take the ****.

 

It's funny how some folks here denigrate guys for throwing fast hard blows in yesteryear before clinching or smothering, when there are plenty of fighters today who do the same, but even in more dull fashion. See Andre Ward, Bernard Hopkins, Maywether in certain fights, the Klitschko's if you pressure them, Cornelius Bundrage, Carlos Molina. Just because those guys were clinchers does not mean they couldn't take anyone out too, or give anyone a tough time of it. They are still fast, quick, reactive, strong, and hard to hit cleanly, and can keep a pretty good pace, better than a lot of heavys today. Sam McVey for sure has the knockout record to prove it.

 

I honestly think that if you showed some people a contemporary fighter in black and white, they would come up with a list of reasons why they were primitive and would not cut it today.