Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by InMemoryofJakeLamotta, May 20, 2019.
Could he go undefeated against this triple threat?
He goes 0-2-1
He gets KOed by Baer and Sharkey and then draws Carnera in what would be fairly entertaining
Losses to all IMO. Losses the Baer fight quite brutally unless Max shows up goofing off
I can't see him being very competitive with any of them!
He beats all 3, probably by KO.
We cater for all opinions here I guess!
Why not, right? Just because it's the classic forum, doesn't mean I have to pick the old-school fighters. Do you wanna explain why you picked the 3 to beat Breazeale? You said that you can't see him being competitive against any of them. I've seen all 3 fight and they weren't good fighters. Baer and Carnera can't even be considered good for their own time. At least Breazeale knows what a high guard is. Look at how Carnera gets dropped with his hands down and then look at how he defends himself when he gets up. Did he not know how to keep his hands up? Or was he simply ahead of his time? Baer couldn't box for shi-t. That first knockdown in that fight is actually hilarious. Baer is loading up on his right hand like it's a cross bow, he telegraphs every movement and still ends up landing flush on Carnera's chin. Talk about reflexes. Talk about defence. They say Holmes low lead was a problem lmao. You'll probably tell me it was some great set-up.
They have no clue how to jab or how to block a jab. They are both crossing their feet. There's no fundamental footwork. At times, they're falling off balance when they punch. Carnera doesn't know how to step in with his jab properly, he keeps leaning forward and falls off balance when he falls short. Carnera has no idea how to cut the ring off. It's obvious he wants to trap Baer but he keeps giving him room to circle. All he has to do is stay in front of your opponent, he keeps stepping to the side. That's ring cutting 101. Watch Breazeale vs Negron and you'll see much better ring cutting.
Breazeale has better fundamentals than all three. He knows which foot goes first and which foot follows. You won't see Breazeale with his feet crossed, standing square. He knows how to maintain his boxing stance. Watch any of Breazeale's fights, you won't see him lunging in with haymakers the way Baer does. He works behind his jab. Baer/Carnera/Sharkey weren't better than Breazeale. Breazeale doesn't make as many technical errors as them. Baer ain't landing that right hand on Breazeale. High guard all day. That's something Carnera couldn't do. Sharkey is too small and can't punch. Carnera is a heavy bag, he's getting knocked out in the early rounds. Baer is also too small next to Breazeale.
I have no problem calling Sharkey and Baer great heavyweights. They accomplished a lot in their time but they can't compete with the modern heavyweights. You can keep denying evolution but boxers have gotten better (especially since the 1920s). Go and step into any boxing gym today. First thing you'll learn is the jab. You'll learn fundamental footwork. I've seen amateur boxers that were significantly better than Baer/Carnera/Sharkey. Breazeale is slow but so was Carnera and yet I saw Carnera landing his jab with high accuracy against Baer. No attempt at parrying, no head movement, didn't even roll with it. Right in the face. He telegraphed his right hand so much but Carnera had no reflexes at all. If he just had a high guard, he could have beaten Baer. I have no clue why his hands were at his hips when he has no head movement. We all have our opinions. You didn't see me talking sh-it when you said "I can't see him being very competitive with any of them!". That's your opinion and you probably know a lot more than me. But opinions aren't necessarily based on facts. My opinion is based on of my understanding of the sport. Heavyweights today are bigger and better than they were in the 1920s. Maybe I'm wrong but how can you be right in a fantasy fight?
Are you saying that Breazle looks better on film than Jack Sharkey?
We can bring up some film and compare them if you want!
A lot to unpack there. I take it you're not Baer, Carnera or Sharkey fans.
Absolutely. Let's see who was more technically sound. Name any Sharkey fight. I'll find the fundamental/technical errors and I'll list them for you. You can do the same for Breazeale's fight.
You might have some trouble finding a fight whee Breazle looked good!
I'll let you pick.
Do you prefer his domination at Joshua's hands, or Wilder's?
Outside of that, you are struggling to pick a world class opponent, and then that becomes a factor.
Anybody can look decentish against weak opposition!
You can pick the Wilder fight but you won't find much there. Let's go with the Joshua fight. Breazeale was less experienced there. What should I watch for Sharkey?
It's just my opinion. I actually don't mind Sharkey. He was very good for his time. I just think boxing has evolved and improved since the 1920s. Maybe not so much since 1970s or 80s. That's all.