Early versions of advanced techniques.

To be fair, Broner was very green against Quintero and slightly green against Ponce.

And yes, he didn't look good in those fights at all.

He looked like an improved fighter since that fight.

A rematch with Ponce would have given us a better indication of his improvement though.

Or a fight with a really good opponent.

His P4P rankings are totally unjustified, of course.

 

Rewatched the Tommy Burns-Bill Squires fight, and while the opponent Tommy is facing is pretty raw, Tommy's right cross appeared state of the art.

Edit: Anyone agree with me on this...? I actually think Tommy's style is more "modern" than a lot of his contemporaries (at or around his weight).

 

Yes, I rate Tommy in that fight, although as you've already said the Aussie looks woeful.

 

Roy Jones Jr. = Ricardo Lopez < Chang <<<< Michael Carbajal

 

What does that mean window licker?!? Get ****ed.

 

frank's the god of window lickers, Flea. All the other ones worship him as an almighty, benevolent deity.

This content is protected

 

He is their window.

 

Forever licked, forever loved.

 

Det RJJ was/is Ricardo Lopez' equal in gr8ness , goodness , quality , impressiveness on film 4 about d same reasons .

 

Thanks Magna...wasn't trying to put you on the spot, just interested in your opinion. I agree with the points you've made. But would like to comment and ask a few questions (and anyone else feel free to chime in). The hands down approach may have been a sign of the times, and method of fighting...20 rounds in the sun would be a brutal day. Also it could be used as a bait and trap, to get an opponent to commit and open up. So there may be more method to that than first considered(?)

The clinch work is what really gets my attention. I see things that Ezzard Charles does like holding an opponent's arms down or pushing them away then hitting...Pulling on the arms like Marciano did. Trying to get an angle like Armstrong or Duran on the inside, when backing an opponent up...also really drives into an opponent using his legs like Armstrong did to take ring center.

Very cognizant of where he was in the ring...would not let his back touch the ropes..but definitely wanted to put the opponent there.

On his weight distribution on defense...isn't that mainly due to his style? Please get into what you meant by 'makes mistakes every other move'...? Getting into that will help me to analyze styles as the armchair warrior I am...

Granted the style isn't pretty AT ALL...But considering the times, and the other factors that have been listed, would it be fair to say that Ketchel was fighting to his strengths in order to make his fight? I would assume each and every fighter, championship level or not, has his own checks and balances as far as strategy when a fight is happening.Attempting to get the opponent to play into your own strengths...And as you stated, Ketchel is thinking in there...At times he stood straight as a stick (ie. poor defense), but when the opponent advanced, he crouched off to the right side for defense and to be in position to crank the left hook...(Hard to tell off one film, and you don't want to attempt to read something is there when it isn't)The wide stance would it very hard for him to fight a mobile guy. but he didn't appear to wait on his reciept when an opponent advanced on him, he backed up, or he was in position to punch...I believe Ketchel fought to his strengths considering things 9and the opponent on film). Like you mentioned, a style definitely based on physicality.

Thanks for the breakdown Magna.:good

 

All of those fighters are beautiful compared to Ketchel on film though.

 

Very true . Ketchel looks awful...Ezzard poetry in motion...same principles, much more refined.
Ray Robinson is also another fighter who was way more physical than given credit for...Watch him bump off LaMotta with a shoulder in a clinch, to gain punching room...or lower his head when LaMotta comes charging at him full tilt...LaMotta has to slow down or get butted in the face (by his own doing).