Dominic Breazeale vs the following

Well you'd know that answer if you actually followed CURRENT era so whats the point of the discussion ? Its why bringing a current top guy is nonsensical to talk about in here bc a loss is a death penalty where the guys YOU like can lose multiple times and its evidence how great the era was ?

Breazeale already lost to everyone compared to him without you guys actually watching him bc we know real life capabilities of the modern guys don't exist here....and small guys with less skill prevails EVERY time....lol

Thats why its stupid to go into detail with match ups on here when only ONE guy ( me ) does know both sides of the fense and you guys hand out super powers to your guys and if I favor guy B,he then is hit with some kind of Kryptonite you create ( of course fighters you don't watch) and who wins based on that with seld selected facts and handed out defaults of opposing arguments ? YOUR guy wins...congrats,you did it again .lol.....

 

You think after going 7 with Joshua that Breazeale will struggle with Sharkey ? lmao


You better go see some actual aggressive power punchers like Izu Ugonoh and see what pressure and power Breazeale was hit with to make such a claim.

The major difference betweena guy like Carnera and Breazeale is Breazeale really hurts you coming in and has true HW power, DONT YOU REALIZE this ,that if you replace AJ with Sharkey what the difference is going to be ?

And Usyk is the ONLY guy with skill like Sharkey,well aren't we lucky to have that? Are you sure we need to be the ones studying film here? Jesus Christ, well good luck ,im not coming back on this one.... . lol

 

Yes the lead shoulder will be slightly further forward some of the time in a fighter with a square stance, butt my wider point still stands.

Sharkey used the same type of off center stance as Louis, as did the vast majority of fighters of that era.

I have provided a video that outlines the difference between the two stances in a step by step manner, and I can do no more for you in that regard.

The square stance which is most prevalent today is here explained by Wladamir Klitschko.

This content is protected

 

The problem is that your entire argument, seems to be that a C grade fighter today would beat an A grade fighter of yesteryear, solely because he has better technical fundamentals.

In the case of Froch you are acknowledging that a gap in class will overcome better technical fundamentals, which undermines your whole argument.

As another poster pointed out, Breazle was knocked out in one round, by a man with some of the worst technical fundamentals in the history of the division!

 

So here you have a guy who by your own admission, doesn't even have a guard worth speaking of, or any head movment to compensate for this deficiency, and you are still trying to argue that he was more technically sound than anybody from the 30s.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

You obviously don't think that a guard or defense are very important in boxing, if a guy with no guard, can be better technically than the man with the best defense from another era!

 

Look I rate Joshua, but not so highly that I will pick somebody over Jack Sharkey, just for getting dominated by him!

If you want me to make somebody favorite over Jack Sharkey, I am going to have to see some sort of wins against world class opposition.

 

And so what?

Dempsey was flattened in a round by Flynn... are you gonna argue, that Flynn had better technical fundamentals than Wilder?

 

So a C grade fighter is not going to be A grade in another era, just because there has been some change in fundamentals.

 

If the eras are 100 years apart, I don't see why not.

 

Would it not be fair to assume that there would be natural talents in any era?

 

Tyson and Frazier often fought squared up.

 

Yes, that would be fair to assume.

Genetically, people have not evolved over the past 100 years. So if we imagine, we took the best boxers from the start of the 20th century, as soon as they were born, and let them grow up 100 years later (and that we further imagine, that they wanted to be pro boxers)… then we're likely to get as fine boxers from that group, as the boxers we have today.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're comparing boxers a century apart AS THEY WERE (I assume?)… which is a whole different discussion.

 

OK so let's say that Deontay Wilder was born in 1900.

What would stop him from developing into what he became in his own era?

What would the trainers of the day not be able to teach him, that would prevent him from becoming the finished article that he has?

 

Breazzele is like those big guys Tyson used bowl over when he was 19 years old - Sammy Scaff , David Jaco etc.

There's a Breazzele in every era. In the 00's he would have been a McCline or a Sam Peters.

 

McCline and Peter would both have Wilder's belt today.